Strathcona supports MEG's strategic alternative process after rejected C$6 billion bid
(Reuters) -Canadian oil and gas producer Strathcona said on Friday it supports MEG Energy's decision to initiate a strategic alternatives process and explore potential deals after MEG urged shareholders to reject Strathcona's C$6 billion ($4.38 billion) hostile takeover bid.
On Monday, MEG Energy advised shareholders to reject the offer, describing it as inadequate and not in their best interests.
The board also launched a strategic review to consider alternatives that could deliver greater value than MEG's current plan to remain a standalone company.
Strathcona, which is backed by Calgary-based private equity firm Waterous Energy Fund, said it remains willing to participate in the alternatives process and looks forward to constructive engagement with MEG's board
Strathcona said it believes it is the only peer company which would provide meaningful overhead synergies if a deal is reached.
Since 2020, Strathcona, has become one of the fastest-growing oil companies in North America through a series of acquisitions.
The all-cash-and-stock offer announced by Strathcona in May, would combine two of Canada's largest pure-play thermal oil sands operators and make Strathcona the country's fifth-largest oil producer.
($1 = 1.3691 Canadian dollars)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
13 minutes ago
- Fast Company
The hidden cost of RTO: Why forcing choice is detrimental to your business
Like most CEOs, I've been watching the return-to-office (RTO) trend closely. It's yet another wrinkle for the talent acquisition function, which is difficult to begin with. After all, the quest to hire and retain qualified talent is discussed at every board meeting, every leadership team offsite, and every yearly planning event. Entire books, magazines, podcasts, and conferences focus on this topic. Whether called a talent gap, the war for talent, or skills-based hiring, the essence remains the same: It's a struggle for every organization. So, why have I been struck by the most recent exodus back to offices? Because when you force choices, the results don't always land in your favor. Don't get me wrong—here at Employ, we have a great headquarters facility in Denver. Employees enjoy coming to work and collaborating in person. But there's a line between RTO as a productivity gain and it being the reason you lose qualified talent. According to 2025 research by Lightcast, remote job postings are down over 27%, hybrid postings are down 20%, and in-person postings are up over 17%. At the same time, companies that have publicly committed to a five-day in-office workweek are losing talent to employers supporting remote and hybrid working arrangements. It's a double-edged sword. The cost of an open role has direct financial implications on an organization, as well as less apparent indirect consequences. Estimates place the average cost of replacing an employee to be six to nine months of their salary. Other financial costs range from the expense of recruiting qualified candidates to onboarding and training. If temporary workers are needed to backfill open roles, the financial loss escalates. And the longer roles go unfilled, business objectives are derailed and productivity falters. Unfilled positions wreak havoc on the existing workforce. Critical projects might be delayed, and workforce planning questioned. Employee morale and engagement stand to decline, especially if employees are overworked. When the topic of it being time to hire qualified talent becomes water-cooler conversation, rest assured that unfilled roles are being noticed. YOUR CURRENT (AND FUTURE) EMPLOYEES EXPECT YOUR TRUST Clearly, some jobs cannot be done remotely. A job candidate applying as a labor and delivery nurse knows they will work onsite in a hospital setting. A hospitality worker seeking flexible hours at a quick-serve restaurant understands it's in person. The job location is well defined in the job description, and the candidate chooses to work on site. For other roles, workplace flexibility isn't an optional perk—it's brand equity. Forcing a one-size-fits-all policy not only damages internal trust but dilutes the company's external talent brand, which is particularly damaging in an already tight labor market. In the case of roles that do not require an in-office presence, pressuring a return to an office can have cataclysmic effects. When teams have operated remotely with success, especially when a robust employment brand has been built on a work-from-anywhere culture, confidence in leadership erodes when a change is decreed versus suggested. The move from remote or hybrid working arrangements to return to office is perceived punitively. Researchers at Gartner have observed that high-performing employees react to a return-to-office mandate as a trust issue, resulting in a 16% lower intent to stay. 'High-performing employees are more easily able to pursue opportunities at organizations that offer hybrid or fully remote policies,' said Caitlin Duffy, a director in the Gartner HR Practice. 'Losing high performers to attrition costs organizations in terms of productivity, difficulty in backfilling the role, and the overall loss of high-quality talent available to fill critical positions.' THE REALITY OF THE WORKPLACE Speaking of losing valuable talent, the return-to-office mandate can be a deal-breaker for those balancing childcare, eldercare, or other requirements with their career. In many cases, this falls on women in the workplace; however, it can affect any worker at some stage in their career journey. Upwork's research said that nearly two-thirds (63%) of C-suite leaders whose companies have mandated an office return of some sort say the policy has led a disproportionate number of women to quit. Gartner's research also showed women's intent to stay at 11% lower with strict RTO mandates. It's a fact that retaining an employee is less costly and disruptive than losing them. Having flexible working policies can help counterbalance care responsibilities and ensure that valuable skills remain in the workforce. QUALITY OF LIFE, QUALITY OF HIRE Apart from those roles where being in person is required, hard-and-fast rules about returning to the office make it harder to recruit. From a technology standpoint, talent leaders are continually seeking to source new candidates and drive efficiencies in their hiring systems, such as using AI-powered interview intelligence to speed up time to hire. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, labor force participation is off by two million people from the February 2020 levels, impacting industries in every state. And, if you compel people to choose between their family and their career, the former will win every time. To be an employer of choice, offer choice. If you can't offer remote and hybrid work arrangements, offer flexibility. It will be the difference between engaged employees and those planning to leave.
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
Debunking Three Cliches Entrenched In The Cybersecurity Industry
JC Gaillard, Founder & CEO, Corix Partners | Board Advisor | Non-Exec Director | Author "The Cybersecurity Spiral of Failure" getty I have been writing about cybersecurity leadership, management and governance issues since 2015. What drove me to writing was primarily the low level of cybersecurity maturity I was coming across in many large firms as part of my day-to-day field work as a consultant. For me, it was difficult to understand why corporations that would have had cybersecurity practices—and budgets—for decades were still struggling with fundamental pillars of good practice, such as identity management or patch deployment. Analyzing and highlighting the dynamics of what I ended up calling the 'cybersecurity spiral of failure' has been at the heart of my work throughout the last 10 years. Another aspect that has been fascinating for me over the past decade is the number of topics that keep coming up cyclically in cybersecurity articles, and how a similar analysis keeps appearing in what has effectively become a typical echo chamber (and it started before generative AI started writing those pieces). In this article, I would like to deconstruct three of these ideas, which in my view embody the problems still facing the cybersecurity narrative and highlight why it is key to avoid shallow and outdated positions on those matters. This is typical of a mindset that goes back to the first decade of this century, in what was still the early days of cybersecurity practices (the first CISO jobs appeared in the late '90s). Many senior executives used to see cyberattacks as low-probability/low-impact events that would be dealt with if and when they occurred, and they often saw compliance requirements as an arbitrary regulatory imposition. CISOs and their consultants built the 'cybersecurity as an enabler' narrative to try to break those deadlocks, in an attempt to reach into some form of business logic. But by doing so, I noticed they were ignoring endemic short-termism and deep-rooted cognitive biases at the heart of the business attitude on the matter, and there is no evidence that the 'enablement' narrative ever worked, beyond generating headlines across the industry. As my organization showed in 2019 when analyzing the cybersecurity evolution across the first two decades of the century, it is the advent of the cloud and the acceleration of cyberattacks it triggered after 2010 that led to a change in perception, with the dominant center of interests for executives shifting from risk and compliance to incidents and breaches. The second decade of the century became truly a 'realization decade,' during which cybersecurity gradually started to be seen as a necessary barrier in the face of real threats: not something that needs to be justified to 'enable' the business to function, but something that needs to be in place to 'protect' the business, its customers, its brand and shareholder value. This is also typical of the same outdated mindset and is often heard, even nowadays, in relation to the CISO reporting line. This is one of the first topics I wrote about in 2015, and at the time, it was already one of the oldest fixations in the cybersecurity industry. It is conceivable that 20 years ago, some CIOs might have followed their business bosses in their low-probability/low-impact assessment of cyber threats and denied CISOs the resources they were asking for. Every CIO has the right to choose the battles they want to fight, and this one was often seen as too difficult. Given the avalanche of cyberattacks we have been seeing over the past 15 years, I don't think this type of attitude is common today, or even sustainable. As a matter of fact, business leaders—most of them—are well aware of the inevitability of cyberattacks, and 'Are we spending enough on cyber?' has become a more common question for CIOs than 'Why do we need to spend on that?' Organizations where this mindset persists often have a deep-rooted problem and may be in denial about the state of their cyber exposure. Wherever you place the reporting line of the CISO in those organizations, the problems will likely remain. This is a more recent line of thought that has emerged throughout the last decade in the face of the sophistication of cyber threats, and this view tends to see security training and awareness development as the central pillar of any cyber strategy. To me, this is short-sighted, even if there is no denying that cybercrime targets people and that social engineering is key in many attack patterns. What is misguided here is to believe that you can change people's attitude at this level by explaining to them what to do or not to do, and broadly speaking, get them to change their attitudes through logic and reasoning. Many unsafe attitudes in the office are rooted in unsafe social practices and cognitive biases, and changing requires a cultural shift, not just training. Fundamentally, you protect what you care about, and it is only a sense of care for the firm, its values and its people that can lead to an embedded desire to protect the firm's data and information assets. That has to start with the leadership team embodying the right example and needs to cascade down from the very top of the organization. So there is indeed a 'human firewall,' but it is a cultural one driven from the top, not one driven bottom-up or sideways by CISOs through tools and leaflets. Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Bloomberg
22 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Hot July Weather Seen Pressuring Europe's Power Supplies
Hotter weather in Europe this summer risks driving up demand while causing output from hydropower and nuclear plants to fall, according to research firm Energy Aspects. Higher-than-usual temperatures across western Europe next month could add about 3 gigawatts of extra demand, it said, while generation from hydro and nuclear power is expected to take a hit of a similar dimension.
