News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.9K     0 

.... as it layoff staff
It looks like the layoffs aren't necessarily market related. According to this article, the laid off staff were involved in a software research and development project, and were laid off when the project was completed. Apparently they plan to keep hiring in other areas.
I guess time will tell, but the people who gave them the money (Inovia) must feel they have something going.
 
Mr Arnaud states "The big difference is that about 75 per cent of those shareholders are not Canadian, meaning the money is flowing almost completely out of the province and Canada, according to St-Arnaud. Though there's about 25 per cent left over, those shareholders are spread across all of Canada, not just Alberta"
I would like to know where he gets this data from. I find it hard to believe that 75% of investors in Alberta oil & gas companies are foreign when all we have heard in the last 5 years or more, is foreign investment leaving the country. Foreign companies have sold off their assets including stakes in oil sands projects. Large global investment firms have dropped fossil fuels like a hot potato because of ESG policies. Yet, he is stating that there is still 75% foreign ownership???? Yeah right Call me skeptical. :rolleyes:
 
This is another area where myths take hold because there are way more execs at small companies who talk, and lawyers, consultants, accountancies that service them.

Edit *Also that dividend paying stocks, stocks buying back shares, different from the equity held as a whole. Which would indicate foreign investors just fled to quality, or rather, fled away from the bad. Which is what happened in the USA too.*

An eNGO did a similar analysis, and pieced information together from Bloomberg terminal, annual reports/filings, and Statscan. Just ignore the spin (it is pretty torqued) and see the data https://old.stand.earth/sites/stand/files/report-foreign-ownership-oilsands.pdf

1669135257791.png
 
Last edited:
This is another area where myths take hold because there are way more execs at small companies who talk, and lawyers, consultants, accountancies that service them.

An eNGO did a similar analysis, and pieced information together from Bloomberg terminal, annual reports/filings, and Statscan. Just ignore the spin (it is pretty torqued) and see the data https://old.stand.earth/sites/stand/files/report-foreign-ownership-oilsands.pdf

View attachment 440368
Wouldn't anyone globally that invests via hedge funds, ETF and others products that includes exposure to the Canadian market/energy would boost the foreign share? Any broad ETF that looks for Canadian exposure would catch some O&G.

It really wouldn't be hard to achieve a high amount of foreign ownership of shares (and therefore dividend flows).
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't anyone globally that invests via hedge funds, ETF and others products that includes exposure to the Canadian market/energy would boost the foreign share? Any broad ETF that looks for Canadian exposure would catch some O&G.

It really wouldn't be hard to achieve a high amount of foreign ownership of shares and (therefore dividend flows) for dividend flows.
I assume it is more of backcasting the difficulty of raising net new capital from 2015 onwards to the capital raised from 2014 and before. The shifts of billions (like when Berkshire Hathaway bailed, or Statoil sold) makes it seem like there is more of a shift, because we don't really get news stories about who ends up on the buyer side, bouncing ball style, and it is typically spread out as you say. Statoil for example received stock, its bond holders weren't bought out but assumed. Who holds those now? Who knows!
 
An eNGO did a similar analysis, and pieced information together from Bloomberg terminal, annual reports/filings, and Statscan. Just ignore the spin (it is pretty torqued) and see the data https://old.stand.earth/sites/stand/files/report-foreign-ownership-oilsands.pdf
Thanks for digging this out, Darwink. It would seem that the 75% foreign investor statement by the analyst was perhaps based on the oil sands only (assuming that Stats Can info is accurate). However his overall statement and subject of the article was more broadly about the 'oil & gas industry' in Alberta. First of all there is no gas component in the oil sands so to make a broad statement as he did that 75% of shareholders are foreign, was misleading in my mind. Natural gas producers are a significant contributor to revenue and profits for the industry. There are dozens of smaller oil & gas companies that probably do not have anywhere near that composition of foreign ownership. Sure oil sands are the largest oil source in Alberta but not the only one.
 
Mr Arnaud states "The big difference is that about 75 per cent of those shareholders are not Canadian, meaning the money is flowing almost completely out of the province and Canada, according to St-Arnaud. Though there's about 25 per cent left over, those shareholders are spread across all of Canada, not just Alberta"
I would like to know where he gets this data from. I find it hard to believe that 75% of investors in Alberta oil & gas companies are foreign when all we have heard in the last 5 years or more, is foreign investment leaving the country. Foreign companies have sold off their assets including stakes in oil sands projects. Large global investment firms have dropped fossil fuels like a hot potato because of ESG policies. Yet, he is stating that there is still 75% foreign ownership???? Yeah right Call me skeptical. :rolleyes:
I could be wrong here, but I believe a lot of that was more of an image thing at the time. It's easy for investors to proclaim they are dropping investing in oil sands due to ESG policies at a time when it wasn't as financially rewarding to invest anyways. Keeps their investors happy, and they look good to green folks. If long term investing in large oil sands projects suddenly became attractive again, I wonder how many companies would find an excuse to re-invest. They might point to a particular company's efforts on ESG policies etc..
 
It still is crazy to me how little we talk about natural gas in the province. Drilling used to drive so much more of the economy, fleets of service providers, geologists, geophysicists, data analysis, small companies could get wells going with a team mortgaging houses, passing the hat to relatives and using severance cheques.
1669146560483.png

So much of the tumult is because of the 2009 collapse, which is still working through companies, our politics and the government.
 
It still is crazy to me how little we talk about natural gas in the province. Drilling used to drive so much more of the economy, fleets of service providers, geologists, geophysicists, data analysis, small companies could get wells going with a team mortgaging houses, passing the hat to relatives and using severance cheques.

So much of the tumult is because of the 2009 collapse, which is still working through companies, our politics and the government.
I have to believe that 2022-24 will be bounce back years for nat gas drilling. I own stocks in Tourmaline and a few junior companies and they will definitely be spending in preparation for LNG export in 2025. While they are rewarding shareholders, they are raising their cap-ex spending as well.
 
I have to believe that 2022-24 will be bounce back years for nat gas drilling. I own stocks in Tourmaline and a few junior companies and they will definitely be spending in preparation for LNG export in 2025. While they are rewarding shareholders, they are raising their cap-ex spending as well.
I’m sure they have economic analysis that predicts how much LNG Canada will need to buy from the spot market in NE BC, and how much that market will interact with AECO. I’d be putting more hope on the Alberta NOVA expansions after a few years of poorly timed maintenance and poor storage policies on top of that!
 

Back
Top