Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

CANEXUS CORP 6.5 PCT DEBS T.CUS.DB.D



TSX:CUS.DB.D - Post by User

Comment by Kman83on Oct 24, 2014 11:26pm
324 Views
Post# 23060389

RE:RE:Cancelled Contract

RE:RE:Cancelled Contract
Calgaryrider wrote:
the statement that stunned me is that they are hesitant to sign contracts with others as it will limit their option.....ie long-term value for prospective buyer.   


Seems pretty clear now that at least one of the serious bidders is a producer that would want NATO for loading it's own oil.  A producer wanting to load their own oil doesn't want all the capacity contracted out to others.

Hey, I wonder if it is MEG that is the producer that is a major bidder and they "engineered" the suituation for the mid-stream company to be able to escape it's contract.  CUS wouldn't be too upset with MEG in that case since it makes NATO more valuable to MEG.  Now there is the conspiracy theory for you!

Usually I am not in to conspiracy thype theories, but it always puzzled me what advantage MEG got from an injunction that was bound to be overturned.

-Kman
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>