CanPol - Alberta edition

[notyoueither]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07676r.pdf

This is from May 2007, prior to the Royalty Review being complete.

Pages 10 and 11

It is a comparison of government take in the oil industry in North America and then elsewhere. Alberta runs from a low of 39% for pre-payout oilsands to 54% post-payout.

Alaska, 56%, increased to 61% after they *gasp* changed their taxation of the oil industry. Russia, 69-70%. Norway, 73-77%. Nigeria 52-77%. Venezuala, 89-91%.

Despite all the bleating and wailing from Calgary, I would say we had some room to increase the royalty rates.

[notyoueither]

Oh, and in Russia when they decide to redistribute oil industry profits they redistribute the companies and jail those who stand up to the government. Similar things happen in Venezuala. In Nigeria militias just steal the oil.

Yep, that poor old Alberta Advantage, murdered by high taxes on corporations, sales taxes, government seizure, oh wait...

[Asher]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07676r.pdf
This is from May 2007, prior to the Royalty Review being complete.

Pages 10 and 11

It is a comparison of government take in the oil industry in North America and then elsewhere. Alberta runs from a low of 39% for pre-payout oilsands to 54% post-payout.

Alaska, 56%, increased to 61% after they *gasp* changed their taxation of the oil industry. Russia, 69-70%. Norway, 73-77%. Nigeria 52-77%. Venezuala, 89-91%.

Despite all the bleating and wailing from Calgary, I would say we had some room to increase the royalty rates.

You're moving the goalposts. Those are not royalty rates.

Let's be real here. The US royalty rates, which are most directly comparable to Alberta in terms of environment and risk, are 12-18%. I assume that's why you did not quote those numbers. Even the numbers in your PDF (most of which you did not cite, including Alberta ones) show Alberta, before the massive jacking in rates, did not even come close to being the lowest royalty rates in the world. They do still hold the crown, by far, of most expensive oil in the world to extract. Think about that.

You're not interested in having a real discussion here. That's fine. So let's not even talk about it anymore, 'cause this is ****ing painful.

[notyoueither]

You're moving the goalposts. Those are not royalty rates.

Let's be real here. The US royalty rates, which are most directly comparable to Alberta in terms of environment and risk, are 12-18%. I assume that's why you did not quote those numbers.

You're not interested in having a real discussion here. That's fine. So let's not even talk about it anymore, 'cause this is ****ing painful.

It's the cost of doing business in the jurisdiction. It isn't me who paid attention to this. It's the GAO. Are you better qualified than they to analyse taxation regimes and the oil industry?

[Asher]

It's the cost of doing business in the jurisdiction.

Why do you torture me?

I'll be brief:
1) This was not the topic of discussion. We were comparing royalty frameworks quite explicitly.
2) Your numbers do not jive with the PDF. It is clear you did not read the whole thing. Alberta has higher than 54% government take in at least one part of the PDF I read, and it also shows dozens of regions with lower government takes than Alberta.

I am not at all interested in talking about "% of government take" because that's an even more nebulous sector with questionable information. The topic is royalty rates, be honest and stick to that.

At least by honest with me about why you're now refusing to talk royalty rates. The fact that you've changed goalposts should tell me that, though...

[notyoueither]

Oh, and guess what? The topic under discussion is increasing the rate of taxation on the activity of oil extraction.

You better send the news to Chevron HQ. The US is an unfreindly environment for oil development.

[Asher]

By the way, this is from your PDF:

Canada – Alberta – 3rd Tier No Tax Credit: 66.7% government take (1997).

Funny how that number didn't show up in your post. It's also funny how it's the 4th ****ing number given in the same PDF for Alberta government take. They're clearly very accurate figures.

[Asher]

Oh, and guess what? The topic under discussion is increasing the rate of taxation on the activity of oil extraction.

Why are you embarrassing yourself?

The topic was, quite clearly, royalty rates. You're now trying to expand this to include overall government taxation, which was NOT the issue. The issue was the fact that the Government of Alberta reneged on prior royalty agreements and massively jacked royalty rates.

You have now moved the goal posts and are STILL pretending like you haven't. Man up and admit why you now refuse to talk about royalty rates.

[notyoueither]

Why do you torture me?

I'll be brief:
1) This was not the topic of discussion. We were comparing royalty frameworks quite explicitly.
2) Your numbers do not jive with the PDF. It is clear you did not read the whole thing. Alberta has higher than 54% government take in at least one part of the PDF I read, and it also shows dozens of regions with lower government takes than Alberta.

I am not at all interested in talking about "% of government take" because that's an even more nebulous sector with questionable information. The topic is royalty rates, be honest and stick to that.

At least by honest with me about why you're now refusing to talk royalty rates. The fact that you've changed goalposts should tell me that, though...

Wait. I thought the oil industry had these massively complex models that they run all the numbers through. You mean they do not take other taxation into account?



Royalties are one piece of the pie. The GoA had ample room to increase royalties due to relatively low levels of taxation as of ~2005-06 compared to other jurisdictions with significant petroleum resources.

[Asher]

[notyoueither]

Why are you embarrassing yourself?

The topic was, quite clearly, royalty rates. You're now trying to expand this to include overall government taxation, which was NOT the issue. The issue was the fact that the Government of Alberta reneged on prior royalty agreements and massively jacked royalty rates.

You have now moved the goal posts and are STILL pretending like you haven't. Man up and admit why you now refuse to talk about royalty rates.

The topic of the GOA report.

Sorry to not be clear.

[notyoueither]

This is called hoisted on your own petard.

[Asher]

This is called hoisted on your own petard.

No, it's called getting bored with somebody who tries to change the topic of discussion retroactively and ignoring the original discussion when you realize you were very, very wrong.

[Flubber]

Oh, and in Russia when they decide to redistribute oil industry profits they redistribute the companies and jail those who stand up to the government. Similar things happen in Venezuala. In Nigeria militias just steal the oil.

Yep, that poor old Alberta Advantage, murdered by high taxes on corporations, sales taxes, government seizure, oh wait...

NYE Its obvious that thre are placers that are far more risky to invest than Alberta-- places where they have blatantly stolen investments and infrastructure. BUt my question to you . . Should Alberta be aiming only to not be among the worst places to invest? Because your comparable and examples are some of the worst

[notyoueither]

No, it's called getting bored with somebody who tries to change the topic of discussion retroactively and ignoring the original discussion when you realize you were very, very wrong.

You didn't say that the oil companies have massively complex models that track all the possible costs and factors affecting profitability for their projects?

I didn't change anything, dude. You put these goal posts up yourself.

'Government take' just happens to be how these things are examined and that is the information available in this one report. I have invited you and Flubber to provide information.