Oil and gas producers fire back at Democratic presidential candidates.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

As Douglas has said he may well be worth that to the shareholders for what he brings to them. Its a fact of life Enthalpic, you may find it abhorrent but there it is.

I would argue that a football (soccer) player in the premier league earning $35-40M per year for playing sport is wrong, but thats the going rate if you are top of your game.

Nobody adds 18 million a year of true value. 

Guy will lay you off to meet targets and therefore gets a bigger bonus!  Oil and gas companies are so disloyal to their employees, lay them off every spring when the ground gets soft only to rehire them at freeze up. Oil and Gas doesn't love you back....

Athletes do get paid too much but their careers are short and they get hurt often.  Oil executives just suffer liver damage from drinking too much.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 minute ago, Enthalpic said:

Athletes do get paid too much but their careers are short and they get hurt often.  Oil executives just suffer liver damage from drinking too much.

So the oil exec dies young, and the sport guy retires early to enjoy his millions lying on a beach in Tahiti surrounded by beautiful girls half his age.

And you're having a go at the oil exec?

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

My point is there are a lot of overpaid people in many different fields, why pick on oil + gas guys?

My experience of these guys is nearly all good, I'd happily have a beer or two with most on this forum, including you 😊

That's if my liver can stand it😂

[Zhong Lu + 845]

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Before Sanders could take office, any oil & gas entity that could would move operations elsewhere to avoid his misguided wrath. I wonder if he has factored in how many upstream, midstream and downstream jobs (as well as third party jobs) would be lost instantly to his asinine policies? 

From the perspective of the majors and its shareholders that's not a problem.  It just means more potential workers they can hire on the cheap.  The big producers want to return back to a time where they had an oligopoly on production.  The current environment sucks for them, and it's reflected in the price action.  Sanders might present them the opportunity.  Sanders can't outlaw them.  But he might outlaw the competition.  Also, if XOM is smart they might start a solar division to win political brownie points.  They have the money to do it.

Point is: there's some really interesting opportunities coming up.  

1.  Oil goes to 40.  That's an opportunity.

2.  XOM goes to 40 or under 40 thx to general panic in response to Sanders and perhaps a dividend cut.  That's an opportunity, too.  

Edited February 26, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

If those oil executives work in the shale oil industry they should better convert to socialism and ask for State subsidies. Because  under a pure capitalist economy, if oil price stays at current level or lower, the market is going to wipe out their heavily indebted business.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2020/02/26/the-oil-and-gas-situation-time-for-alarm-has-arrived/#265822c99209

US fracking is a technological and geopolitical success but it's also a financial fiasco.

 

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

10 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

https://postmediacalgaryherald2.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/compensation_page_2018.pdf

Top oil guy in Calgary makes 18 million a year, tough life, really needs more money.  Look stuff up Ward.

Kiss my what? 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

11 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

https://postmediacalgaryherald2.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/compensation_page_2018.pdf

Top oil guy in Calgary makes 18 million a year, tough life, really needs more money.  Look stuff up Ward.

I don't want to call you a moron, I don't want to insult all the morons out there either. 

If I simply look at the link you provided, what do I find? Why do I find that you are yet again totally full of shiff? Why is this a recurring theme with you? Any money you have you must have inherited or got it dealing drugs because everything you've demonstrated to date doesn't scream competence at all. 

Scott Saxberg only makes around $388k per year. That's Canadian dollars so give it a 30% haircut because of the fabulous job your fearless leader is doing with your economy up there. So about $270k per year. I'm going to bet there are at least a dozen people here reading this who have made at least that much in a year. But yeah, like a LOT of stupid people out there, you conflated salary, which is a real form of compensation with stock options, which must be published by publicly traded companies but have zero guarantee of ever being worth anything. I'm not even going to get into the strike price which isn't part of what they announce, which could well mean (and very likely does) that each and every one of those shares is COMPLETELY UNDERWATER. 

So again your entire "analysis" is full of shiff. Now, don't you feel just stupid for going on and on about taking a dump and making this kind of salary EVERY year, when that's completely and utterly false? Given your track record, my Magic Eight Ball is going with "no".

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

The irony is that if Sanders wins the election it might actually be good for commodity prices.  Less supply -> higher prices.

For example, if he declares a ban on fracking, oil prices jump 5 bucks overnight.  

There's also the minor point that at the rate commodities prices are going, there aren't going to be frackers anyways.  For the majors, a Sanders presidency might not be bad for them.  He'll guarantee high oil prices with his policy, and it's the majors that can take the best advantage of it.  The downside is that he might also pass a giant energy tax.  

From the majors' perspective, Sanders winning the presidency while Republicans control the Senate is probably the best option.  Sanders means higher oil prices, and their influence/money in the Senate can prevent any energy taxes.  Frackers go out of business and they scoop up everything.  

EDIT: If Sanders wins the election, it might be a good idea to scoop up XOM, especially if people dump it in response to the result.  Sanders might actually be good for the majors because of "higher oil prices."  Also given their deep pocketbooks, there's nothing stopping them from expanding into renewables, too. 

XOM's yields are now 6%, as the market is clearly expecting a dividend cut.  If oil jumps to 70 or 80 thx to Sanders, XOM is going to be seriously undervalued.  

Hopefully, you realize that Sanders has announced his desire take over the production of electricity. That means all renewables ASAP. It means trillions of dollars wasted and trillions more paid by consumers. No good prices for electric car fuel, etc. It would mean years of chaos and hopefully a quick return to natural gas, gasoline, and oil. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

11 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Maybe when you make more than ten times the pay of a Greenpeace executive?  18 mill guy is bought, 500K person is cool.

If Greenpeace was not a FRAUD, they would take ZERO

[Zhong Lu + 845]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Hopefully, you realize that Sanders has announced his desire take over the production of electricity. That means all renewables ASAP. It means trillions of dollars wasted and trillions more paid by consumers. No good prices for electric car fuel, etc. It would mean years of chaos and hopefully a quick return to natural gas, gasoline, and oil. 

Well that's why we have Congress to put a check on presidential powers.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

 

Scott Saxberg only makes around $388k per year.

Only 388k per year, poor, poor guy...  If you know anything about money management even a few years pay (and per diem for almost every day plus a corporate expense credit card so you save everything) would last you a really, really, long time - and you think these guys are money pros...   All I said was that rich executives do their job for prestige and power not money - if you think 18 million a year guy keeps going to work for money keep drinking the pro-oil propaganda Koolaid.  #Power nothing about money or value.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Enthalpic

[ronwagn + 6,290]

33 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Well that's why we have Congress to put a check on presidential powers.

That depends on who is elected to the Congress. I am not willing to depend on them!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

6 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Only 388k per year, poor, poor guy...  If you know anything about money management even a few years pay (and per diem for almost every day plus a corporate expense credit card so you save everything) would last you a really, really, long time - and you think these guys are money pros...   All I said was that rich executives do their job for prestige and power not money - if you think 18 million a year guy keeps going to work for money keep drinking the pro-oil propaganda Koolaid.  #Power nothing about money or value.

I rest my case...again!

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I rest my case...again!

You suck so bad with money you can't get insanely rich after a few years at 388k?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 minute ago, Enthalpic said:

You suck so bad with money you can't get insanely rich after a few years at 388k?

Obviously, as I am not ‘insanely rich’.

At what point do you move from the ‘well off’ category into the wealthy regime? And when do you move from ‘wealthy’ to ‘rich’ and then to ‘insanely rich’?

You really need to define these groupings so that the rest of us know which group we are in prior to responding.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Obviously, as I am not ‘insanely rich’.

At what point do you move from the ‘well off’ category into the wealthy regime? And when do you move from ‘wealthy’ to ‘rich’ and then to ‘insanely rich’?

You really need to define these groupings so that the rest of us know which group we are in prior to responding.

Ok, I made less than 100K Candian for 17 years (but with good pension plan), invested well, had no kids, and now have more than enough to last.  RRSPs and TFSA let you pay less tax, etc.  Just be smart.

But yeah I drive a little Yaris, etc. so my definition of enough money is different that others. I grew up poor.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Enthalpic

[0R0 + 6,251]

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

So the oil exec dies young, and the sport guy retires early to enjoy his millions lying on a beach in Tahiti surrounded by beautiful girls half his age.

And you're having a go at the oil exec?

The multimillion sports stars typically over spend on outlandish toys and homes and divorces. Most of them die broke. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 hours ago, 0R0 said:

The multimillion sports stars typically over spend on outlandish toys and homes and divorces. Most of them die broke. 

The really smart oil execs bullshit their way to an $18 million a year salary, rent their steel-bellied airheads, buy a beach somewhere less expensive than Tahiti (remember that although these guys know how to spend other peoples money, they had to be somewhat ‘fiscally responsible’ to get “insanely rich”) and they lease their toys.

Eventually they succumb to old age with a big fat smile on their face...makes me jealous! 😂

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

13 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Ok, I made less than 100K Candian for 17 years (but with good pension plan), invested well, had no kids, and now have more than enough to last.  RRSPs and TFSA let you pay less tax, etc.  Just be smart.

But yeah I drive a little Yaris, etc. so my definition of enough money is different that others. I grew up poor.

So here's the drill (pun intended). You were a government toady and because it's the government you no doubt get to collect on a gold plated, automatic cost of living upgraded, possibly even tied to current salaries pension. Bully for you. That's not how it works for the 90% who don't work in the government. 

My sister's ex was a simple patrolman in California. He did the job for about as long as you did, and based on hours not years, managed to get early retirement from the force. Because he planned to retire, he maxed out his overtime volunteering for everything. His average salary while he was working back in the 80's was around $50k but since he worked so much overtime, his last two years he got around $85k. Naturally by the alchemy that passes for finance in Kalifornistan, they based his pension on that. Cue to today. More than double the number of years he actually worked he's been collecting a pension, fully funded by taxpayers obviously, that due to the aforementioned gold plating is currently collecting over $120k per year! Remember, his best year Ever was only $87k when he was actually performing a service! 

Over 20 years ago I owned a successful business, which I ultimately sold for cash, around $6.5 million. After paying my taxes on the windfall and a few other things I ended up around $5m. No doubt in your millennial mindset (whether you meet the age criteria or not, your mindset is the same), you likely are already saying, "Filthy rich"! But after twenty years, through various investments both up and down, I'm essentially in the same position. My "salary" only comes from returns on investments and interest and amounts to maybe $60k per year. So who's the real crook here, me who earned it, or the ex cop who clearly didn't? Put that in your pipe and smoke it. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

So here's the drill (pun intended). You were a government toady and because it's the government you no doubt get to collect on a gold plated, automatic cost of living upgraded, possibly even tied to current salaries pension. Bully for you. That's not how it works for the 90% who don't work in the government. 

My sister's ex was a simple patrolman in California. He did the job for about as long as you did, and based on hours not years, managed to get early retirement from the force. Because he planned to retire, he maxed out his overtime volunteering for everything. His average salary while he was working back in the 80's was around $50k but since he worked so much overtime, his last two years he got around $85k. Naturally by the alchemy that passes for finance in Kalifornistan, they based his pension on that. Cue to today. More than double the number of years he actually worked he's been collecting a pension, fully funded by taxpayers obviously, that due to the aforementioned gold plating is currently collecting over $120k per year! Remember, his best year Ever was only $87k when he was actually performing a service! 

Over 20 years ago I owned a successful business, which I ultimately sold for cash, around $6.5 million. After paying my taxes on the windfall and a few other things I ended up around $5m. No doubt in your millennial mindset (whether you meet the age criteria or not, your mindset is the same), you likely are already saying, "Filthy rich"! But after twenty years, through various investments both up and down, I'm essentially in the same position. My "salary" only comes from returns on investments and interest and amounts to maybe $60k per year. So who's the real crook here, me who earned it, or the ex cop who clearly didn't? Put that in your pipe and smoke it. 

It is inflation / cost of living adjusted but is not based off current salary; it is based on the average of your best 5 years.  Usually those best five years are your last years but not always.  I did a temporary acting assignment for a project with a bonus.

Oddly, like you reported, my best five year average turned out to be more than I even made in a single year in my substantive position.  The union contract was expired at that time and I got retroactive pay and my pension based on the higher rate.

Kudos to you for getting wealthy, my path to semi financial freedom was perhaps an easier road but that doesn't make me a crook.  I didn't make the rules or design the game, I just played it the best I could.

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

16 hours ago, 0R0 said:

The multimillion sports stars typically over spend on outlandish toys and homes and divorces. Most of them die broke. 

Get too rich and your helicopter might crash...

Not even first world problems... the 1% problems.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

12 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

It is inflation / cost of living adjusted but is not based off current salary; it is based on the average of your best 5 years.  Usually those best five years are your last years but not always.  I did a temporary acting assignment for a project with a bonus.

Oddly, like you reported, my best five year average turned out to be more than I even made in a single year in my substantive position.  The union contract was expired at that time and I got retroactive pay and my pension based on the higher rate.

Kudos to you for getting wealthy, my path to semi financial freedom was perhaps an easier road but that doesn't make me a crook.  I didn't make the rules or design the game, I just played it the best I could.

My point, which I believe you agree with, is that there's always more to the story. My piece of the pie was the 6.5, there were others involved, some did well, some didn't. Frankly, from an economics perspective my ex brother in law is doing substantially better than me. He really can't lose anything, while I could lose everything. He doesn't need to manage and worry to get that money, it's just manna from heaven. Oh, and he long ago left Kalifornistan, "taxes were too damn high". Direct quote. He wasn't amused when I told him it was people like him who contributed to the necessity of those high taxes. 

So, getting back to you, you sit there in your glass house (admittedly not of your own construction) and roundly criticise others who are trying like hell to earn enough to grab the same kind of brass ring you've got sitting in your hand. No doubt you can live comfortably on your pension and everything beyond that is gravy. If you collect for another 40 years, you would have needed over $10million cash to have funded the lotto prize you alread won. 

Still feel like criticizing those who not only have gone out to try and earn that money? Their taxes are supporting your lifestyle! 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

15 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

 Their taxes are supporting your lifestyle! 

Not really, the pension plan** fund is doing very well.  So well the government cut payments into the fund because it was getting too bloated.

My union also had such a huge war chest of growing money that they could threaten strikes, and keep paying the picketers for years if needed!  I had to go on strike once (I voted against but lost), it sucked but they paid me $100/day cash to stand in front of the building for 4 hours per day.  Thankfully it ended really fast, maybe three days.

**Note, I am not talking about the normal Canada Pension Plan which will go broke eventually due to so many old people leaving the workforce and so few new worker bees.  My financial advisor says I will get paid out no problem but children will have their eligible retirement age increased again soon so they have to contribute longer and collect less.

It's already gone from 60 to 65 I think...

Edited February 27, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

The pension is great, but also becomes "golden handcuffs."  People stay in jobs they despise because "it's pensionable time" and that creates toxic work environments.

"Going Postal"

Edited February 27, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Bob D + 562]

35 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

The pension is great, but also becomes "golden handcuffs."  People stay in jobs they despise because "it's pensionable time" and that creates toxic work environments.

"Going Postal"

Enthalpic  ... In America, the average government worker makes $69k+ while the average private sector worker makes $48K+.  The government worker salary is confiscated from the private sector worker.  Government workers have pensions while most private sector workers do not.  That is sickening. 

You make your living off the tax payers of Canada.  That guaranty (your salary) should come with a thank you to all the citizens paying it rather than the scorn you display for the business builders, risk takers, innovators and entrepreneurs.