The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber
NYE

Obviously we disagree. I believe that when an oil company is asked what an impact will be of something and then answers truthfully, it is not a "threat".

Encana's noise making about the royalties was anything but the truth. They had long planned the shift in activity and tried to make like it was the royalty review that caused them to do what they were going to do regardless.

They peddled blatant lies in an attempt to intimidate.

Originally posted by Flubber

Oh and I wanted to address this one. I agree that Alberta has not gotten a lot of revenue on oilsands. The reality was that the two Suncor and Suncrude projects were developed in an environment of $20 oil and many many in the industry thought they would never make money. But a higher initial royalty back then would have meant no projects. AS it was, there wee times when the projects were severely questioned (like when oil hit 12 bucks in 1998)

And part of what needed to be reviewed is just how projects that were begun in the 70s could not yet be paying significant royalties and how to prevent similar deferments for new projects.

Why should the industry have a problem with the government not wanting to participate in any more one-sided deals when we clearly do not need additional development?

I have sat through some of the meetings where large capital projects are discussed-- The types of things where you need to spend a billion a year for 5 years before a project even STARTS producing. The economics of these types of projects are very sensitive to things like interest rates and royalties in the initial stages . .. things that delay the repayment of capital investments. Now the boom of the Alberta economy has seen the capital costs of oilsands projects skyrocket such that many of them are not economic at all even with $50 or $60 dollar oil. Add material additional royalties on the early barrels and you could get to a situation where none of the new projects are economic. Again-- not a threat-- just a factual assessment

That's fine. As you say, the unplanned gold rush model of development adopted by the pin heads of the previous administration hasn't been good for the oil companies either. I am familiar with that as well. All the more reason to not be afraid of BS like what Encana and other industry mouthpieces were trying to peddle.

It's also a factual assessment that Alberta's royalty regime was and still remains among the most generous, if not the most generous for the industry in the world. Furthermore, the costs to the people of Alberta have been high, too high according to some.

It's also a factual assessment that there is no way, no how, that the people of this province were going to tolerate continued and further sweetheart deals for oilsands development that saw nothing of note coming back when the price of oil was over $80/bbl 30 years after a development began.

I do not think the Province, or the people of the Province, have been out of line to say 'hey now, this is going to have to change.'

The generic oilsands regime tops out at a royalty of 25% IIRC-- thats hardly peanuts.

It is compared to what other jurisdictions claim as their share, assuming those other jurisdictions even allow the choice bits to be worked by the non-state concerns.

NYE

People talk about a fair share ... I have never known what that is when we are talking about a royalty . IS 10% fair? 20%? 50 % I can know what is possible or economic on a given project. We see it all the time when we farmout lands-- One time you can get a 15% royalty while the next 5% is all that is possible (any more and the math on the project simply does not work).

Fair is what the deal is around the world in places with oil that allow private development, and adjust for costs.

What pisses off a good number of people in this Province is that the oil industry is complaining about being asked to pay a larger portion of what the rates are elsewhere, and that they actually start paying on the oilsands.

I'm sorry, Flubber. I have less than zero sympathy for an industry that seems to be insisting that the only way they will develop Saudi Arabia with a cowboy hat is if the Province pays for the entire cost of the project and does not see a dime above 1% over 30 years after digging began.

It ain't gonna continue happening, and that is a factual assessment. Sorry if it makes you unhappy.

[Ben Kenobi]

What, are they packing Manning around in a suitcase that converts to a pulpit? Will there be punch at the Saturday night revival/caucus meetings?

Harper needs to do as well as Reform used to here in BC if he wants a majority. That shouldn't be too hard, except plenty of folks like me have jumped ship away from Harper.

I'm not voting Conservative again this election. I'm actually voting for an independent who split off from the Greens. Long story short, I am dissatisfied by the choices in my riding, and am looking to send a message to Ms. May.

[notyoueither]

There's a lot of that from old Reformers.

It's funny that in Central Canada, Harper is a Reformer, but in AB and BC, he is a sell out according to the faithful. Little better than Mulroney. But of course, that story does not get told in Toronto.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Harper needs to do as well as Reform used to here in BC if he wants a majority. That shouldn't be too hard, except plenty of folks like me have jumped ship away from Harper.

I'm not voting Conservative again this election. I'm actually voting for an independent who split off from the Greens. Long story short, I am dissatisfied by the choices in my riding, and am looking to send a message to Ms. May.

Get over it, Christian parties have no hope in Canada. We're smarter than that.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Wezil
Can our resident separatists shine some light on this? Conservative policy is sometimes being blatantly modified to fit Quebec politics (Afghanistan for example) yet they are seeing little payoff. What gives?

Quebec polls
...conservatives have a lot more support than 2006 elections:

Bloc Québécois: 31% (2006: 42%; Which is a huge drop)
Conservative: 30% (2006:24%)
Liberals: 16% (2006: 20.8%)
NPD:16% (2006: 7.5%)
Green: 8% (2006:4%)

Today polls (CROP: 1000 peoples polled from 18 to 28 sept; Margin: 3%)

BQ is the great loser in Quebec, as far as the poll can show us.

Many people who voted for BQ in 2006 are now going to vote for Conservatives.

NPD also doubled their support; which I believe came mainly from people who voted BQ. Which lead to believe that maybe they will be some voters who will finally switch for BQ at the elections day, being afraid that the conservatives will win.

[CrONoS]

Which is surprising considering the fact that the "media-art" lobby have organized a huge "anti conservatives" propaghanda on youtube/newspaper/main stream media & television.

Sincerely, I began to saves webpages and frontpage of newspaper to show to my friends how much biased are Quebec media.

Really, it surprise me a lot, that conservatives are not lower... considering the propaganda of the artists & medias.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither




It ain't gonna continue happening, and that is a factual assessment. Sorry if it makes you unhappy.

I don't believe I ever said any of it made me unhappy. The fact that I work for an oil company doesn't make me any less a citizen that wants roads and schools and hospitals. There is much that was appropriate and needed in the royalty changes that they actually did make. I just think, no make that know, that the royalty review commissions report itself contained numerous flaws and would have made entire types of developments unviable. It did not account for the fact the activity leverls will and do change whenever anything happens that fundamentally alters the economics of the activity.


Quick!!--

1. Government adds a $1 per km surcharge per passenger on all air travel-- Do people travel as much?

2. Alberta government announces minimum wage goes to $22 per hour-- Does the economy boom with all that cash OR do a whole bunch of retail and restaurant businesses end up closing their doors.

But I guess if those industries pointed out those consequences that would be a threat??


-------------------------------------------------------------

NYE

ON a personal level I am not at all unhappy that increased royalties could slow things down but on reflection I don't think that that is what will happen. I think that the planned activity for the tight gas plays in BC will mean that regionally, activity won't decrease at all (massive infrastructure has to be built). All those Alberta service companies will continue to be every bit as busy, the only differnce being that more of them will be working in BC and Sask than currently. I see no slackening on the demands on the labour pool and the main difference will be that more royalty and tax revenue will flow into their coffers rather than Alberta's at present. The upside for Alberta is that a resource that is not developed today can be developed tomorrow. Whether 20-25% of something now at todays prices is better or worse for Alberta than some higher royalty percentage at some different price at some unspecified time in the future.... who knows?

[Ben Kenobi]

There's a lot of that from old Reformers.

It's funny that in Central Canada, Harper is a Reformer, but in AB and BC, he is a sell out according to the faithful. Little better than Mulroney. But of course, that story does not get told in Toronto.

That's exactly it. We voted in droves for Day and people say we are the Lotuslanders?

It really depends on what part of the province. BC is much more then just the city of Victoria and Vancouver. Much of the rest of the Province is as conservative as Alberta.

Hopefully Harper recognises how essential BC is to his goal of a majority, he can pick up 10 seats here without too much difficulty.

[Asher]

Stockwell Day was a tool. You voted for him, no one else did. Ergo the party was a failure.

Get over it Bennyboy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Stockwell Day was a tool. You voted for him, no one else did. Ergo the party was a failure.

Get over it Bennyboy.

Quebeckers voted for him. Ontarians voted for him.

Eliminate the PC party and he would have had a majority government. The splits from the 2000 election is what drove the movement to unite the right.

[Asher]

You're insane, Ben. I would never, ever vote for Stockwell Day's party but I would vote for the PC. I'd vote Liberal over Day's party. You assume if you eliminate PC you'd get a majority, in actuality you'd lose progressives such as myself to the other party.

Almost as insane as today's Toronto Star Comment of the Day.

I love how educated people are here. Did you know Alberta is constantly dipping into the equalization fund? Never mind that they contribute far more than Ontario per capita to said fund...

Whiney provinces like Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland always whine about how they're getting shafted by confederation yet gladly dip into the transfer well at every opportunity. Now that the truth is out there, Ontario needs to start ringing the separation bell. Funny thing is, we really could part with the rest of Canada and go it alone. Quebec would be broke in a week and contrary to that loud mouth Danny Williams, without Ontario, the EI cheques would stop pouring into Nefoundland from October to May.

I've had it. Nuke this ****ing province.

[Asher]

Here's another comment, same thread:

It is now clear -- independantly -- that we deserve 11 billion back. We have funded the building of this great nation and sustained it for long enough. It is to look after ourselves. Time for the ones with the rich resources (and therefore strong surpluses) to start doing their part.

It's time for Alberta to start contributing like Ontario.

:dies:

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher


WTF are you talking about -- who is talking about specific tax breaks?

I agree with you that industry specific tax breaks as outlined in the Green Shift are unacceptable.

The Libs had created a specific tax break program for oil when it was at $30/barrel.

Harper eventually had to promise to axe the subsisdy, but has said it won't be done until 2010.

And get over the Green Shift. Alberta will pay because Alberta pollutes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


The Libs had created a specific tax break program for oil when it was at $30/barrel.

Harper eventually had to promise to axe the subsisdy, but has said it won't be done until 2010.

And get over the Green Shift. Alberta will pay because Alberta pollutes.

Ontario pollutes also with all of their cars and trucks, but they're not paying anything more in the Green Shift because of it. If you've ever seen Toronto on a summer day, you'll know the smog I speak of.

Calgary and Edmonton's air is pristine compared to Toronto.

It's unfair to massively shift the tax burden to "polluters", then give exceptions to some polluters. It's even more unfair to start taxing people for doing something they have no other choice currently -- for instance, Alberta's power almost exclusively comes from coal. They are looking into building nuclear plants, but that's not until 2020 at the earliest. Why should Alberta pay billions and billions of dollars to build those plants, then pay billions more in a tax because they're still on coal?

The "green shift" is not a "carbon" tax, it is a selective tax that punishes beyond reason. Right now Alberta is the only thing preventing Canada from entering a recession, and the Green Shift wants to destroy that. It's mind-bogglingly stupid, and it's no wonder the majority of Canadians are rejecting the idea and the Liberals are floundering spectacularly.

Get over that.

[Asher]

BTW, the Toronto Star moderators are refusing to publish any comments to identify that Alberta actually pays more per capita than Ontario in terms of transfer/equalization payments.

But they continue to publish comments condemning Alberta "whiners" who "take money whenever possible".

What a rag.