PDA

View Full Version : Canadian Natural Resources Ltd swings to $405-million net loss on Alberta tax increase



Billythreefeathers
08-06-2015, 02:20 PM
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd swings to $405-million net loss on Alberta tax increase

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/canadian-natural-resources-ltd-adjusted-profit-beats-as-expenses-fall

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. reported a second-quarter loss, and even though the company is feeling the impact of low oil prices, it’s blaming the loss on the corporate tax increase imposed by Alberta’s newly elected NDP government.

Canadian Natural took a $579-million “deferred income tax charge” to account for Alberta’s decision to hike provincial corporate income tax rate to 12 per cent from 10 per cent, effective July 1. As a result of the charge, Canadian Natural reported a second quarter net loss of $405 million or 37 cents a share, compared with a profit of $1.07 billion, or 97 cents, in the year earlier period.

Without the charge, the company would have reported a adjusted earnings of $174 million or 16 cents a share. Analysts surveyed by Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S had expected adjusted earnings of 10 cents a share.

The corporate tax increase was introduced by the government of Rachel Notley, who took office as Alberta’s first NDP premier on May 17.


“Based upon third party research, this lower future capital reinvestment likely equates to about 4,100 fewer person years of direct, indirect and induced employment, with follow-on impact of higher income taxes on future income streams.”

Canadian Natural has been slashing development programs to deal with lower commodity prices and cash flow. During the quarter the company dropped its average production cost to $13.39 per barrel of oil equivalent, down from $15.35.

Total revenue for the second quarter was $3.42 billion, down 36 per cent from $5.37 billion a year earlier. Cash flow, a key indicator of the company’s ability to pay for new projects and drilling, was $1.5 billion or $1.38 a share, down from $2.87 billion, or $2.63 a share, a year earlier.

Billythreefeathers
08-06-2015, 02:20 PM
guess the PM was right after all,, Notley's NDP are a disaster for Alberta

soulchaser
08-06-2015, 02:31 PM
guess the PM was right after all,, Notley's NDP are a disaster for Alberta

And Tommy the commie is calling for an increase to the federal corporate tax rate.

kennymo
08-06-2015, 02:33 PM
And Tommy the commie is calling for an increase to the federal corporate tax rate.

At an identical rate yet.....(2% IIRC) When does big oil break ground on those new offices in Saskatchewan?

soulchaser
08-06-2015, 02:47 PM
At an identical rate yet.....(2% IIRC) When does big oil break ground on those new offices in Saskatchewan?

Well, he first needs to find out what the current rate is because he quoted the wrong percentage in a speech in June.

Pizzed
08-06-2015, 04:03 PM
Government effing around with big business, this will not end well for someone!

Billythreefeathers
08-06-2015, 04:13 PM
Government effing around with big business, this will not end well for someone!

everyone suffers when big business suffers,,

VooDoo
08-07-2015, 10:34 AM
Notley has been going on a spending spree and yet have not published a budget. Unless oil prices head north of 90 get ready for provincial sales tax Alberta.

Billythreefeathers
08-07-2015, 10:37 AM
she's not going to release a budget before 19 Oct for obvious reasons

expect more and higher taxes

VooDoo
08-07-2015, 10:42 AM
Encana has said they can move their investments elsewhere, you can be sure it's heading to SK where there's a huge field that hasn't been tapped.

http://www.ogj.com/content/dam/etc/medialib/platform-7/ogj/articles/print-articles/Volume_107/July_13/22544.res/_jcr_content/renditions/pennwell.web.550.532.gif

RangeBob
08-07-2015, 10:43 AM
she's not going to release a budget before 19 Oct for obvious reasons

expect more and higher taxes

Some have said there's one NDP party. That it has federal and provincial 'departments'.

Question:
If so, would it be correct to say that Mulcair isn't releasing the Alberta budget until October 20th ?

SIR VEYOR
08-07-2015, 06:49 PM
Encana has said they can move their investments elsewhere, you can be sure it's heading to SK where there's a huge field that hasn't been tapped.


They're already in the cold lake area. Not very far to get to SK, even on the SK side of the air weapons range. Then just run a couple of pipelines, and a lot of stuff coming up in AB will get its first stage "refining" is SK. A lot of their staff live in Cold Lake now anyways. Keep the same people and let em drive the other way same or less commute...

Carguy2550
08-08-2015, 12:51 AM
They delayed the budget but called the by-election in Calgary Foothills for September 3. Talk about voter burn out.

PS - it's Alberta held hostage day 95.

blacksmithden
08-08-2015, 01:20 AM
Some have said there's one NDP party. That it has federal and provincial 'departments'.

Question:
If so, would it be correct to say that Mulcair isn't releasing the Alberta budget until October 20th ?


Im SOOOOO going to use that in every social media post I make from now until the election. Thanks RangeBob.

Swampdonkey
08-08-2015, 07:04 AM
CNRL has a unique business plan with high risks and overall tight margins. I'm actually not worried by this.

But it does highlight that instability is bad for business, making socialist governments terrible for the economy

blacksmithden
08-08-2015, 07:11 AM
CNRL controls a huge chunk of money in the patch with a huge employment trickle down. We dont want to see them say "To heck with it....shut it down for a while until the people in the province come back to their senses and vote out the dippers. The oil has been there for 400 million years. It'll still be there in another 4 years....or 8, depending on how dumb people want to be about it.

SIR VEYOR
08-08-2015, 05:46 PM
CNRL controls a huge chunk of money in the patch with a huge employment trickle down. We dont want to see them say "To heck with it....shut it down for a while until the people in the province come back to their senses and vote out the dippers. The oil has been there for 400 million years. It'll still be there in another 4 years....or 8, depending on how dumb people want to be about it.

They've already started doing it. Mid-construction of one facility, shut down and being mothballed for 3+ years. Started it when oil dropped and killed most of it in Jan\Feb, now the rest of the construction is done and will stay that way for 3yrs minimum is what I've heard. And most of their camps around there are already closed up as well or on a short timeline for it to happen.

Foxer
08-08-2015, 06:51 PM
Alberta is going to have to learn to live without oil revenues for a little bit. Between world oil prices and The Sherriff of Notley coming after their tax money oil businesses won't be contributing nearly as much.

It's going to mean tough times, but not insurmountable or disaster times hopefully. And its possible that in the long run it will scare the people of alberta away from depending on oil and oil revenues for their incomes and they'll deversify their economy and put that oil money in the bank instead of buying down taxes. If they do that, then in 10 years they'll have enough to replace oil revenues on interest alone and that's forever.

Alberta made a huge mistake bringing in the ndp. One we would be wise NOT to repeat federally. But - perhaps they can find a silver lining in it.

Donny Fenn
08-08-2015, 08:32 PM
Confused. Aren't you taxed on profits? So how does it end up being a loss unless they're taking more than CNRL made?
Which would not surprise me 'cause that's how it feels to me some days.

Foxer
08-08-2015, 09:24 PM
Confused. Aren't you taxed on profits? So how does it end up being a loss unless they're taking more than CNRL made?
Which would not surprise me 'cause that's how it feels to me some days.

You're thinking personal profits. Which would be true. But large corporations can take a massive loss in a year and then defer that tax credit against a future year in order to help reduce the costs of investing in a new project or the like. I'm simplifying - but lets say i spend a million dollars this year investing in getting a new oil project off the ground, employing large numbers of workers and such to build new facilities and the like. That million dollars is a tax write off, i can write it off against my profits as a business expense. I only bring in 500,000 dollars from my other activities, so i deduct 500 thousand of my million dollar loss and i'm left with 500 k in taxable write offs I can't use. So - i push it into the next year. Helps make the project worth while.

Now - notley's changed the rules and I LOSE that 500 thousand tax write off. On top of that i lost money because oil went down. So now, instead of having that tax credit on my books, i have to write it off and that means a LOT of money that I WOULD have had in assets that are suddenly gone. It actually becomes an expense for this year on paper and I declare a loss for the year instead of a profit and that project I did doesn't look as sweet anymore. New projects look even less sweet.

That's kind of how it works in simple terms. It's sort of a paper loss but it IS real to the corporation.

blacksmithden
08-08-2015, 11:46 PM
One way or the other, you dont bite the hand that feeds you, especially when they already took a 50% hit in the price of the product they sell. Thats exactly what Sherriff Knothead is doing.....kick em when their down so to speak. 500,000 is a sting, but not a giant hit to a company like CNRL....the point is, why would you intentionally operate at a loss just to keep operating. That isnt going to fly very long. Once the bean counters determine that they can keep more money in the company by shutting down for a few years and starting up again when the dippers have gone vs keeping things going through them....THAT is the moment in time when the s--- gets real, in a BIG hurry for Alberta.

Foxer
08-09-2015, 12:39 AM
One way or the other, you dont bite the hand that feeds you, especially when they already took a 50% hit in the price of the product they sell. Thats exactly what Sherriff Knothead is doing.....kick em when their down so to speak. 500,000 is a sting, but not a giant hit to a company like CNRL....the point is, why would you intentionally operate at a loss just to keep operating. That isnt going to fly very long. Once the bean counters determine that they can keep more money in the company by shutting down for a few years and starting up again when the dippers have gone vs keeping things going through them....THAT is the moment in time when the s--- gets real, in a BIG hurry for Alberta.
I'm actually kind of liking the Sherriff of Notley/knothead thing :) We should try to get a meme going :)

Prairie Dog
08-09-2015, 12:55 AM
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo106/sigp226rfan/motivatore90603d5b9d91d7d5d94815822.jpg

Candychikita
08-09-2015, 01:01 AM
Confused. Aren't you taxed on profits? So how does it end up being a loss unless they're taking more than CNRL made?
Which would not surprise me 'cause that's how it feels to me some days.

To add to what Foxer said, with big business, they are taxed on profits AFTER expenses. This is why you see some businesses doing big splurges once a year before fiscal year end - charitable donations, new office supplies, etc. Their accountants will be looking at what their profits are for the year and the expenses and will give them basically a "spend it or lose it" allowance where they purchase assets and things to forward their business, based on what their actual profits are. They normally have a budget and each quarter they take a look at if they are above or below the purchases/income they anticipated, but the final quarter before fiscal year end is when it matters most...they want to show a moderate amount in profit for the shareholders to be happy, but they also don't want to be taxed too much because they made too much. They can defer if they overspent and have a reasonable expectation that they would recoup the income needed to cover it another year. It's made so that businesses can grow without instantly seeing profits, especially when they need to do R&D before breaking ground. I have seen things deferred for up to five years, but I think it might go up to ten years.

Individuals are taxed on profits up front (off paycheques) and then issued a tax refund in March if the individual was overtaxed. One of the reasons why being a sole proprietor on the side is such a fun thing is you get to use business write offs that would come off of your personal taxes. There is again a fine line where you want to see more profits than losses, and a great accountant is very helpful to find information on structuring things tax-wise without crossing the line into tax evasion.

blacksmithden
08-09-2015, 01:59 AM
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo106/sigp226rfan/motivatore90603d5b9d91d7d5d94815822.jpg

LOL....good stuff. We should keep it to the spelling of her name though. Sheriff Nothead. What do you guys think ? :)

Foxer
08-09-2015, 02:00 AM
I've got to write a story about "Brian Hood and the Sherriff of Notley" and his fight to give unfairly taxed money back to the starving people/workers :) It practically writes itself. I'd even sell the movie rights if they promise not to use kevin costner

Foxer
08-09-2015, 02:01 AM
LOL....good stuff. We should keep it to the spelling of her name though. Sheriff Nothead. What do you guys think ?

I honestly think it was funnier as the robin hood reference - she's taxing the people to death just like the original sherriff of nottingham.

blacksmithden
08-09-2015, 02:40 AM
I honestly think it was funnier as the robin hood reference - she's taxing the people to death just like the original sherriff of nottingham.

Agreed...needs it's own thread though. I'm on it !!!! :D

killer kane
08-09-2015, 10:47 AM
LOL....good stuff. We should keep it to the spelling of her name though. Sheriff Nothead. What do you guys think ? :)

The quote is correct though.

FlyingHigh
08-09-2015, 12:51 PM
I've got to write a story about "Brian Hood and the Sherriff of Notley" and his fight to give unfairly taxed money back to the starving people/workers :) It practically writes itself. I'd even sell the movie rights if they promise not to use kevin costner

Use Russell Crowe. He was excellent as Robin Hood.

Haywire1
08-09-2015, 01:29 PM
Use Russell Crowe. He was excellent as Robin Hood.

Pfft. Russel Crowe. Pfft

There is, was and always will be only one true Robin Hood.

http://40.media.tumblr.com/871f2314f11beb9f0cc9a9e90be4f978/tumblr_n3xk1zaNPp1qlatf4o1_1280.jpg

RangeBob
08-09-2015, 01:32 PM
There is, was and always will be only one true Robin Hood.

Actor Roger Rees [Sheriff of Rottingham in Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993)] died earlier this year.
You'd need a different actor to take over the role, and a different character name (than Rottingham) to avoid copyright.

Haywire1
08-09-2015, 01:35 PM
1) notley can play herself
2) robinhood is eternal
3) like the ndp getting power in Alberta and the resulting chaos ISNT a mel brooks movie???

I am just waiting for BSD to become the plucky hero who rallys the townsfolk

Prairie Dog
08-09-2015, 01:41 PM
I am just waiting for BSD to become the plucky hero who rallys the townsfolk

He'll need a stage name.

Haywire1
08-09-2015, 01:43 PM
"Crispy"
"Boomer"
"Buoy"
"How the hell did I survive that time?"

Pick one?

blacksmithden
08-09-2015, 01:54 PM
1) notley can play herself
2) robinhood is eternal
3) like the ndp getting power in Alberta and the resulting chaos ISNT a mel brooks movie???

I am just waiting for BSD to become the plucky hero who rallys the townsfolk

If by "rally the towns folk", you mean "organized the mob that leaves a wide path of distruction and ruin on their way to kill the king in the name of freedom." then hell yea. :)

Ok guys....back on topic please. :)

Haywire1
08-09-2015, 01:56 PM
*sigh* fine. I will get back on topic.

Now that Notley is driving out businesses like CNR, its only a matter of time before the plucky hero arrives :)