Canadian Money Forum banner
341 - 360 of 366 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
I had never heard of DBM so I looked it up. Based on previous posts I am led to believe these are not long term positions but as stated a value play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,995 Posts
I had never heard of DBM so I looked it up. Based on previous posts I am led to believe these are not long term positions but as stated a value play.
Yes, that's my intent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
Over the past four weeks I have been putting money into some oil and gas stocks. Some in Canada and some in the USA. I have tried to focus on companies who have a strong position in natural gas. The Canadian stocks are TOU , ARX, Whitecap and Cenovus. The US stocks are Diamondback, EQT and ConocoPhillips. So far the returns have very good. The supply of NG in the US is 17% below historic levels heading into the winter. Europe is facing a big time shortage. Because so many institutions are not free to provide financing to the fossil fuel industry expanded drilling its not taking place. Societies refusal to allow for pipeines has an effect as well. There is an excellent supply/demand situation for the industry. I figure all of these stocks are strongly positioned to profit from this situation.Whitecap is a slightly different story .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
I think there will be a resurgence in the O&G industry in a few years. Green energy isn't going to fill the need and we will be forced to fall back on our plentiful resources. I could be wrong but we'll see. Just wait till all the electric vehicles start needing batteries and motors, we can't generate enough power, the infrastructure can't support the charging and the landfills start filling up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
Right now natural gas is the best product for home heating . I never understood the hostility of the climate change crowd in opposing NG. Changing coal power plants to NG plants seriously reduced GHGs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,864 Posts
It would be interesting to put 10k into the top 10 junior oil companies in Alberta...their shares are volatile, spreading the risk should result in out performance. Most likely judged by production cost, balance sheet,proven reserves and PE. Which other metrics am I missing.
The only one I'm familiar with is Bonterra. Bonterra Energy Corp (BNE-T) Quote
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
Right now natural gas is the best product for home heating . I never understood the hostility of the climate change crowd in opposing NG. Changing coal power plants to NG plants seriously reduced GHGs.
The climate change crowd seems to have blinders on. If Canada doesn't produce the resources, other countries will increase their production to fill the demand. Plus, reducing our emissions is not going to change the world climate for the same reason, as other countries will increase theirs. The only losers will be Canadians and Canadian corporations, all taking a financial hit. Glad I'm retired from trying to run a business and make a profit but sad that my kids and grandkids are going to be taking the hit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,864 Posts
We've been losing since our ballerina gained power...looks like no end therefore no solution in sight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,052 Posts
We have had this discussion multiple times before. The domestic (primarily OECD) green crowd really is as dumb as a fence post and dense as a blacksmith's anvil.

I have no problem with the CC initiative undertaking economic effort to reduce consumption wherever it may be, but it is complete heresay to constrain supply. It just pops out elsewhere. Look at what the war on prohibition, drugs and prostitution gave us. Nothing but push production to the unsavory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
what is really dumb from an environmental standpoint is importing oil from the Middle East. Giant oil tankers moving oil across the Atlantic emitting extreme levels of GHGs and than coming into the Saint Lawrence. Their must be family compact easterner interests that explains this stupidity. SNC does a lot work in that area of the world. You scratch my back back and I scratch yours? in the world of Quebec politics how could that be possible?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,052 Posts
The import picture is far more based on economics than conspiracies. There are no economics in moving Canadian crude past Ontario (or perhaps Montreal). The more economic option is moving oil from the eastern seaboard and up from PA et al. The Valero (Ultramar) refinery at Levis actually does get some oil from the West via the pipeline they built from Montreal years ago but it is only a portion of their supply. It is also a light oil refinery so cannot handle much heavy feedstock.

It is obvious offshore crude can be landed at Irving in Saint John far cheaper than anything that can come from the west, i.e. it is cheaper to ship Gulf of Mexico oil to Saint John than to being a single barrel from the West. It is also a light oil refinery. The bigger question is the mix of US feedstock that currently goes into the Montreal and Southern Ontario area from the likes of the Bakken et al. I don't think we can get too tore up about US or Middle East imports into Atlantic tidewater.

Canada has bigger issues to deal with right now with the Line 5 problem across Michigan.That may actually result in re-configuring a TC gas pipeline through the Canadian shield to oil for an all Canada pipeline to Ontario if the Biden WH is too beholden to the Michigan Democratic governor. I think TC is already struggling to keep their gas mainline at full capacity into Eastern Canada. We need to put the big Energy East idea to bed. It is a fairy tale. The industry needs to be more subtle about a potential TC Energy conversion instead.

2020 is not a good year for comparison but there has been far too much misinformation about Canadian oil imports. The real story is Good news about Canada's crude imports the oil patch would rather you not know - iPolitics
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
The import picture is far more based on economics than conspiracies. There are no economics in moving Canadian crude past Ontario (or perhaps Montreal). The more economic option is moving oil from the eastern seaboard and up from PA et al. The Valero (Ultramar) refinery at Levis actually does get some oil from the West via the pipeline they built from Montreal years ago but it is only a portion of their supply. It is also a light oil refinery so cannot handle much heavy feedstock.

It is obvious offshore crude can be landed at Irving in Saint John far cheaper than anything that can come from the west, i.e. it is cheaper to ship Gulf of Mexico oil to Saint John than to being a single barrel from the West. It is also a light oil refinery. The bigger question is the mix of US feedstock that currently goes into the Montreal and Southern Ontario area from the likes of the Bakken et al. I don't think we can get too tore up about US or Middle East imports into Atlantic tidewater.

Canada has bigger issues to deal with right now with the Line 5 problem across Michigan.That may actually result in re-configuring a TC gas pipeline through the Canadian shield to oil for an all Canada pipeline to Ontario if the Biden WH is too beholden to the Michigan Democratic governor. I think TC is already struggling to keep their gas mainline at full capacity into Eastern Canada. We need to put the big Energy East idea to bed. It is a fairy tale. The industry needs to be more subtle about a potential TC Energy conversion instead.

2020 is not a good year for comparison but there has been far too much misinformation about Canadian oil imports. The real story is Good news about Canada's crude imports the oil patch would rather you not know - iPolitics
If it isn't economic it seems strange that Irving Oil was shipping oil from the Canadian west coast through the Panama canal to its east coast refineries . From an environmental standpoint I would think moving oil by pipeline is a clear winner over shipping by tanker. At the end of the day I wish we were in a situation were the market would decide whether something is viable rather than politicians .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,052 Posts
If it isn't economic it seems strange that Irving Oil was shipping oil from the Canadian west coast through the Panama canal to its east coast refineries . From an environmental standpoint I would think moving oil by pipeline is a clear winner over shipping by tanker. At the end of the day I wish we were in a situation were the market would decide whether something is viable rather than politicians .
Those few tanker loads from both the West Coast and GoM were a test for risk of security of supply in event covid disruptions starved Irving of imports and/or crude by rail from USA

Lastly, the heavy discounts to landlocked AB oil helped narrow the cost disadvantage. That was not politically based....though Energy East is. That all said, it s not clear the amortization of a hugely expensive Energy East could compete economically with marine shipping of oil from any source....depending on how much of TC's gas mainline could be converted inexpensively.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,345 Posts
Right now natural gas is the best product for home heating . I never understood the hostility of the climate change crowd in opposing NG. Changing coal power plants to NG plants seriously reduced GHGs.
It depends on how you define "best". Burning natural gas emits CO2 just like any fossil fuel does. Just a bit less than oil because of higher furnace and production efficiency. It might be less expensive than other options, but that does not make it "best".

In most of Canada, electricity is the best product for home heating based on lower CO2 emissions. This because the majority of our power is hydro or nuclear based.

Electricity is more expensive if used directly, but ground or air source heat pumps can boost efficiency to 200-300%. Improving new and existing home energy efficiency will further reduce energy needed (e.g. net zero homes or improved insulation etc). Updated building codes will, before long, require us to go in this direction.

Another benefit of heat pumps, is that they also provide cooling in summer. Natural gas can't do that ;)

Disclosure: We have heated and cooled our home for over 10 years with an air-source heat pump. It has required zero maintenance. Our overall electricity usage was cut in half. We previously had baseboard electric heating and a separate A/C unit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,052 Posts
I agree heat pumps will eventually be the answer in most cases, but even today's higher tech heat pumps are marginal in much of Canada's heartland where it routinely is below zero in winter months. They are still a rarity in the BC Interior despite considerable gov't and BC Hydro subidization, and geothermal is not an option either in most locations. It will be high efficiency NG heating in BC for decades to come at least anywhere other than the Lower Mainland and coastal areas such as Prince Rupert. We've briefly looked at a heat pump as compared to a new high efficiency gas furnace, but will look more closely as we approach the time for furnace replacement.

The old heat pump systems didn't cut it. We damn near froze one winter in Washington, DC with a heat pump (in the early '90s). Could not get the house past 65F on some days and the system would have to shut down every several hours to defrost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
The entire environmental anti-pipeline movement has never been about ecology. It is all about money.
Pipelines are significantly cheaper, cleaner, faster, safer than rail or tankers.
There is not a single argument not to build as many as we practically can, other than politics.
Future sources of energy, such as hydrogen, will also need pipelines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
It depends on how you define "best". Burning natural gas emits CO2 just like any fossil fuel does. Just a bit less than oil because of higher furnace and production efficiency. It might be less expensive than other options, but that does not make it "best".

In most of Canada, electricity is the best product for home heating based on lower CO2 emissions. This because the majority of our power is hydro or nuclear based.

Electricity is more expensive if used directly, but ground or air source heat pumps can boost efficiency to 200-300%. Improving new and existing home energy efficiency will further reduce energy needed (e.g. net zero homes or improved insulation etc). Updated building codes will, before long, require us to go in this direction.

Another benefit of heat pumps, is that they also provide cooling in summer. Natural gas can't do that ;)

Disclosure: We have heated and cooled our home for over 10 years with an air-source heat pump. It has required zero maintenance. Our overall electricity usage was cut in half. We previously had baseboard electric heating and a separate A/C unit.
not everyone has access to cheap hydro electricity. Power plants that have converted from coal to gas cut emissions by 50%. Folks using electric cars or heating homes based on electricity have significantly reduced their carbon footprint. The same can be said for exports of LNG to markets like China. I understand it is a carbon producer but it produces carbon at much lower rates then other fossil fuels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,345 Posts
I agree heat pumps will eventually be the answer in most cases, but even today's higher tech heat pumps are marginal in much of Canada's heartland where it routinely is below zero in winter months.
Our Mitsubishi air source heat pump heats a 1650sq.ft part of our home served by heating/cooling ducts. We do not need supplemental heat until the ambient temperature drops below minus 23degC. It's hard for some to understand how -23C air can heat a house :) But it does.

At that limit temperature, the COP has dropped to ~1.3 vs the average for the heating season of ~2.0. We have had our unit for over 10 years. It replaced our baseboard heating as well as our central A/C. A ground source unit would have been even more efficient, but installation would have been costly.

A heat pump may be hard to justify as a retrofit for a gas furnace, but certainly an option for new construction or for those with baseboard electric or perhaps even an oil furnace & tank. It would provide a significant reduction in carbon emissions over gas or oil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,345 Posts
not everyone has access to cheap hydro electricity. Power plants that have converted from coal to gas cut emissions by 50%. Folks using electric cars or heating homes based on electricity have significantly reduced their carbon footprint. The same can be said for exports of LNG to markets like China. I understand it is a carbon producer but it produces carbon at much lower rates then other fossil fuels.
We are not talking about cheap hydro. We are talking about electrical home heating with a very low carbon footprint. Way better than burning natural gas from that viewpoint. Even on a cost basis, gas prices won't always be at their current low levels.

In Canada as a whole, about 82% of our electricity is based on hydro, nuclear or renewables. Only 8% is from natural gas.

Here in Ontario, we no longer use coal and only 3% of power generation is from natural gas.

Overall, electricity generation contributes comparatively little to carbon emissions and will be even less as the the coal fired stations still operating in some provinces are closed down.

Combustion of natural gas and other fuels in homes and in industry has a high contribution to carbon emissions. Apparently about 1/2 our homes are gas heated. Others still burn oil and wood. This needs to be corrected, and there are plans in place to do just that.
 
341 - 360 of 366 Posts
Top