Larget Canadian energy company - merger announced today

Discussion in 'Stocks' started by Kassz007, Mar 23, 2009.

  1. Suncor and Petro Canada have merged to create Canada's largest energy company ($43 billion market cap).

    Being a Petro Canada shareholder I received 25% premium for the shares because of the merger. I am thinking of selling at this level and maybe buying more shares at a later date when it comes down. What do you think? How do you think the merged company will fare a year from now?
     
  2. Frostie

    Frostie

    Petro Canada seems to be a good hedge against low oil prices for Suncor.

    Perhaps Suncor is positioning itself for a more international presence, which it will need in the near future if Enbridge builds their proposed pipeline to a Pacific hub. The pipeline project, at least imo, is more important than ever for Suncor/Syncrude after Obama's statements about not wanting to buy dirty oil sands oil.

    Overall I don't know if the synergies between these two companies will translate into higher stock prices a year from now, but I do know that it will correlate with oil prices. =P

    Any idea about what the new company is going to be named?

    I bet there are a few more mergers like this one down the "pipeline"... Anyone care to speculate?
     
  3. The company is definitely a much larger player on the international scene now; projects all over the world not just in the Alberta oil sands.

    I'm not too worried about Obama's comments regarding dirty oil sands oil. It makes no economic sense for the USA to curb oil imports from the oil sands. I suspect he was just trying to please the environmentalists.

    I'm pretty sure the company will be sticking with the Suncor name.

    As for speculation - perhaps Encana will desire to regain their title as Canada's largest energy company? Time will tell...
     
  4. US interest in Canadian syncrude means nothing.

    We've had this debate before.

    Oil is an international commodity - ie, its fungible.

    If the US doesn't buy from Canada, it will buy from somewhere else and the global demand versus supply picture -- ie, PRICE -- will not change.

    The cost to ship oil via supertanker is extremely cheap expressed as cost per gallon. Under 2%, per gallon from here to the Middle East.

    Not a concern.
     
  5. Obviously the cost of a barrel of oil to the USA is the same anywhere (excluding transportation costs). But don't you think the USA would rather give Canada billions of dollars in oil revenue as opposed to the Middle East? I don't think any negative environmental impacts the Canadian oil sands produces will offset this fact.

    Soon enough this argument will be obsolete anyways because of the recent advancements made in the extracting process (expected to be much cleaner down the road).
     
  6. There's not much behind Obamas threat besides posturing. And even if it came to pass, it wouldn't matter.

    Until we burn water in our tanks instead of gas, or oil stays below 30, tar sands are good bet.

    To answer your question - wouldn't the US want to enrich Canada instead of Saudi's?

    It wouldn't matter. Oil is fungible. Middle East sells to someone else.

    Besides, the Middle East buys a shitload of Military equipment from the United States. An armed middle east = conflict zone = rational for US military presence and War = profits for Military-Industrial-Complex and Oil Industry.

    So no, the US wouldn't want the Saudis broke on their dime.
     
  7. Frostie

    Frostie