Royalty on Alberta Oil is less then 4% !!!!

[Toma]

Ok.... so what did I do wrong here??

Alberta pumps out 1.7 million barrels a day .... or about 600,000,000 barrels per year. Now, taking a conservative price of oil last year of $70 a barrel, the value of the oil is $42 billion dollars. The forecast for the 2006/2007 OIL royalty revenue just updated is $1.36 billion for the year..... Divide the 2, multiply by 100... and Albertan's got 3.2% for THEIR oil..... this excludes the fact that over the last year, the US dollar was also a few percent higher!!

WTF?

Is this a fair share?

[Xtrema]

Doesn't royalty program take in consideration on the cost of production?

So using your formula, say it now cost $40 to produce a barrel. The profit is say $18B. So royalty is around 7.5%.

I know it doesn't exactly work that way because if the oil company invests in Alberta, they actually pay a lower royalty rate until ROI is reached.

The idea for the company to keep throwing $$ into our economy instead of just paying royalty and send all profit home.

I think the media never portrait this side of the business. Since it's harder for people of live in Alberta, politicians are starting to build a election platform out of this and unaware that if you fuck with the top, the trickle down economy stops.

I'm all for readjusting royalty but not to the degree the report suggests. And probably on a more gradual formula instead of $2B right off the bat.

I don't know if you hold any investment in the energy sector. The day that report come out, most portfolios took a beating. God know how bad it will be if it's implemented as per the report.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Doesn't royalty program take in consideration on the cost of production?

So using your formula, say it now cost $40 to produce a barrel. The profit is say $18B. So royalty is around 7.5%.
I have no idea. I was just pointing out the extremely low return we ar egetting.

Cost of production on VERY expensive oil sands extraction is only $10-$14 a barrel.... so....

WOW, are we getting jipped.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Toma
WOW, are we getting jipped.

That depends. It's a trickle down effect. Why did the retail and service section flourish this few years? People work with energy sector (1 in 6) are richer, which make retail/service section rich.

And don't tell it doesn't help the immigrant behind a counter in Tim Horton. If they are in Ontario, they are still getting minimum wage with the same cost of living. At least they get close to $12/hr here.

There IS side effect. The gap between rich and poor is widen now. And while I consider myself to be quite well off 3 years ago, it's less rosy now with rising cost.

So with royalty, there are 2 way to take it.

Raise it, fuck the economy just like the NEP in 80s and hope the world is so starve for energy and come crawling back in a decade.

Or work with the industry for a more sensible raise and keep the investing going and economy strong.

[nos_efx]

$10-$14? Where did that value come from?




Originally posted by Toma

I have no idea. I was just pointing out the extremely low return we ar egetting.

Cost of production on VERY expensive oil sands extraction is only $10-$14 a barrel.... so....

WOW, are we getting jipped.

[lint]

For oil sands, the royalty rate is 1% until the company recoups their investments costs, then it goes up to 25%.

[Toma]

I just realizes the 1.36 billion does not include royalties from oil sands which are another $2.4 billion.

Total is then really 3.8 billion, so we are 9% not factoring costs....better, still a LONG way off from the 25+% I would expect....

[Mangina]

Originally posted by Toma


Cost of production on VERY expensive oil sands extraction is only $10-$14 a barrel.... so....



What??? That seems pretty low.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Mangina


What??? That seems pretty low.
Thats what it is now. It was higher, but dropped a huge amount.

As I recall a brand new site would cost $18 to $25 a barrel, but they would enjoy a royalty of only 1% for the newbies in the field....

[cherpintow]

Take a look at this document for what rates are currently at, and what is proposed


Click here (http://www.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=PDF&dn=126378)

[FishPoo]

Should also realize that oil sands bitumen doesn't sell for the same price as WTI.... it's at a fairly steep discount since there's not too many refineries that can handle it yet.

[89coupe]

Maybe instead of riding on the coat tails of Oil&Gas companies, we should implement a working interest into the equation. If you want a piece of the fucking pie then maybe you should invest into that pie to get it. I bet a large majority of people would all of a sudden get real quiet;)

[Toma]

Maybe instead of riding MY coat tails, O&G should pay more then 9% for MY resources.

[Gart]

Originally posted by Toma
Maybe instead of riding MY coat tails, O&G should pay more then 9% for MY resources.


but, how many people have moved here recently? are they encroaching on YOUR resources too?

[Fire_chickin]

Everyone who's wanting higher royalties makes it sound like that money will go directly to Albertans. Wrong. It goes to government coffers and it looks to me like they're pretty good at wasting money. They just got embarrassed over letting MLAs get paid for sitting on committees that aren't even doing any work. Not to mention they're already consistently posting surpluses.
Get government accountable and fiscally responsible with the money it already has. Until then, that cash does far more good in private hands where it creates jobs and feeds our economy.
With the Canadian dollar getting so strong and production costs consistently going up, these guys aren't receiving the kind of profits everyone thinks. Some are already talking about heading to Saskatchewan. Anytime Sask looks more attractive than Alberta, you know we have problems.

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by 89coupe
Maybe instead of riding on the coat tails of Oil&Gas companies, we should implement a working interest into the equation. If you want a piece of the fucking pie then maybe you should invest into that pie to get it. I bet a large majority of people would all of a sudden get real quiet;)

Exactly. I heard on the news, some guy saying "We, as Alberta citizens are entitled to more revenue from the oil companies"

Entitled to? WTF? Is the oil on your land? What makes you think YOU should get ANY of the money these companies worked hard to make?

I honestly can't see why these companies would have to pay more royalties. Yes, lets cripple the very thing that has made our provincial economy number 1 in Canada.

Its like the hot wife gold digger divorces her husband then goes to the court saying "I am entitled to..." No, you're not entitled to shit.


Originally posted by Toma
Maybe instead of riding MY coat tails, O&G should pay more then 9% for MY resources.

Again, why is it yours?

[icecreamvan]

Originally posted by Toma
Maybe instead of riding MY coat tails, O&G should pay more then 9% for MY resources.

You're right. Lets leave all the O&G in the ground where they are worth exactly nothing.

[Darkane]

My company does about 14bucks a barrel and sells for 30 bucks (Dehydrated bitumen). SAGD operation.

[kertejud]

Originally posted by Canmorite
[B] Exactly. I heard on the news, some guy saying "We, as Alberta citizens are entitled to more revenue from the oil companies"

Entitled to? WTF? Is the oil on your land?

Well, yes actually. It isn't the oil companies land, it is the government's. And who does the government represent? The people. Therefore, that oil is mine!


Its like the hot wife gold digger divorces her husband then goes to the court saying "I am entitled to..." No, you're not entitled to shit.

In this case I'd say the oil companies are more like the hot wife and Alberta is the husband. When the husband's resources are all used up, do you think the wife will be sticking around? Then what's the husband left with?

[Celica TVS3]

The oil is a resource that does belong to the province and therefore Alberta residents, nobody questions that. But the fact is the proposed changes the royality rate structure significantly impact the economics of many of the long term oil sands projects. Furthermore, everyone (the uninformed public) seems to forget that the majorty of the oil and gas companies production is weighted to natrual gas, which is currently experiencing depressed pricies, and unless we get an exterme winter in the eastern US they are going to stay low untill summer. Allready these natrual gas producers have been cutting back capital spendng projects because its simply not economic to be drilling. This is clearly evidenced by the low rig activiety. This additional tax grab is just another obstical the company has to hurdle for a project to be viable.

I can go into a dozen flaws in the reports methodology but the facts are simple,, Alberta is a comairitivley expensive place to produce oil, oil and gas companies can move outside our province if they find cheaper projects abroad (there is oil in BC and SK), it is oil and gas investment dollars that keep us all employed (whether you work in the O&G indsutry or not).

TOMA you're clearly pandering an uneducated / overly simplistic view of the a) the report b) the current royalty structure c) operating costs / finding development costs within the province. I would be surpised if you even read the report. If you would like to learn more about the current royalty rate structure, the proposal or the flaws in the proposal please let me know and I can show you why this is not good for Alberta or Canada.

I think the best description of the proposal is that it is recomending that Alberta takes a larger peice of a smaller pie!

[kertejud]

Originally posted by Celica TVS3

I can go into a dozen flaws in the reports methodology but the facts are simple,, Alberta is a comairitivley expensive place to produce oil, oil and gas companies can move outside our province if they find cheaper projects abroad (there is oil in BC and SK), it is oil and gas investment dollars that keep us all employed (whether you work in the O&G indsutry or not).


Well, they wont find cheaper projects in Canada, nor will they have the security that Alberta provides. BCs resources are pretty much nothing compared to ours and there is always the threat of an environmentally concious left wing government.

Saskatchewan has the same kind of oil we do (the expensive to extract kind) and new projects there also need to be started from scratch. Also take into account that the Sask government has historically been against such devellopment and the people aren't generally in the mood to go through with it either. If Alberta were to change its policies, I can't imagine Sask would be far off it. I'd be willing to bet that it would still be far cheaper to run operations in Alberta with a 20% royalty compared to starting new operations in Saskatchewan.

For the record, I do indeed think that 20% is a little excessive, but it definitely needs to be changed. Its quite pathetic how far we are behind other il producing regions in terms of long term savings from royalties.

[pinoyhero]

A couple points I didn't see while skimming this thread ...

1. When counting out the royalty dollars one must not loose site of corporate tax paid as well.

2. The compaines benefitting are not private, they are public companies largely and widely held by citizens of Canada. If these companies take a hit so do those who own them in RRSPs and other savings vehicles. Why punish those who are responsibly planning financially?

[icecreamvan]

Originally posted by kertejud


Well, yes actually. It isn't the oil companies land, it is the government's. And who does the government represent? The people. Therefore, that oil is mine!



Is that oil as much yours, as it is for a newfie who just got off the plane in Calgary? What's the qualifier? Are you going to claim that everything is yours by virtue of geographic proximity? If so, can I come dig up your flowerbed because I believe that there's oil underneath that's partly mine? Pretty please?

What about the leases and investments made prior? Without appropriate grandfathering, the government is changing the rules of the game after companies have invested billions into developing crown land.

This is similar to landlords unethically skyrocketing rents, except in this case the tenants had spent thousands on a brand new kitchen out of belief that rent will not fluctuate.

Time and time again, the government has shown to be a poor manager of money. That additional royalty? Don't expect that to see a penny of it. I'm sure that the government has plenty of inefficient projects to initiate.

[Schwa]

^ I like that analogy.

The economics are already done on a lot of these projects, and a sudden hike is basically taking all of that planning and throwing it in the shitter, and O&G companies would be involved in projects that don't even make any money.

Again without F&D costs factored into it the results are skewed.

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by kertejud


Well, yes actually. It isn't the oil companies land, it is the government's. And who does the government represent? The people. Therefore, that oil is mine!


Over-simplification of who 'owns' the land. Natives were here before us, should we pay them royalties for the use of 'their' land?

Land titles change hands.


Originally posted by icecreamvan


Is that oil as much yours, as it is for a newfie who just got off the plane in Calgary? What's the qualifier? Are you going to claim that everything is yours by virtue of geographic proximity? If so, can I come dig up your flowerbed because I believe that there's oil underneath that's partly mine? Pretty please?

What about the leases and investments made prior? Without appropriate grandfathering, the government is changing the rules of the game after companies have invested billions into developing crown land.

This is similar to landlords skyrocketing unethically skyrocketing rents, except in this case the tenants had spent thousands on a brand new kitchen out of belief that rent will not fluctuate.

Time and time again, the government has shown to be a poor manager of money. That additional royalty? Don't expect that to see a penny of it. I'm sure that the government has plenty of inefficient projects to initiate.

Great points.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Canmorite




Again, why is it yours?

Albertans own their natural resources.... its in a littel document you may have heard of.... our CONSTITUTION... or BNA Act....and subsequent acts like the mines and minerals act etc....

Surprised you dont know that......

Here is the flipside.... why do you think someone ELSE should own the resources of this province?

[Toma]

Originally posted by icecreamvan


You're right. Lets leave all the O&G in the ground where they are worth exactly nothing.
Who said that?

I would personally only allow enough prodcustion to meet our needs, and export enough to cover our yearly defecit with a bit of a safety margin.

Excess always spells waste and corruption....

[7thgenvic]

once again, why ruin the thing that has made our province so strong...I know ^^^your all political when it somes to your issues in the middle east. But really why do YOU deserve more money from the oid companies. Who is sufferening in this province....maybe the environment..the fucking deer should be the ones complaining. Not the Alberta citizens who see the benefits of the riches oil has brought this province

[Toma]

Originally posted by 7thgenvic
once again, why ruin the thing that has made our province so strong...I know ^^^your all political when it somes to your issues in the middle east. But really why do YOU deserve more money from the oid companies. Who is sufferening in this province....maybe the environment..the fucking deer should be the ones complaining. Not the Alberta citizens who see the benefits of the riches oil has brought this province
Hmmm.... well, in 20 years that I have paid attention, Alberta has gone downhill IMHO.

I dont personally want anything.... I do just fine. But roads are a disgrace (about 3rd world levels), schools are going downhill, tuition is way up, crime is way up, and of course healthcare sucks ass, cost of living is WAY up.... sooooo

I dunno... sure we have had a boom, and of course the conservatives and drunkard Klein were corrupt beyond imagine...

but the boom has strained what we value, and revenue and spending on these factors has not kept up....

I would prefer that our current "slowdown" got much slower.

[7thgenvic]

welcome to Alberta...I know the other province are accepting residence applications. especially out east..Your on the same crazy level as Ontarible. I don't know who you are calling corrupt. Just take a sneak peak back a few years ago at the last prime minister..or wait take a look back a few years earlier then that. That fucking democrazy in my opinon. Its the government wanting what they can't have. Any way you look at the royalties, its just going to piss away the money that is currently in Alberta and give it to some fucking hilbillies out east or some fucking unemployed (not looking for a job) bum.

If you so inclined to take a stab at the oil companies then join the NDP and the rest of the liberals who are sitting on their gold mines, uranium and mineral rich assets 2 provinces over. i would rather have a drunk named Klein then a sellout like stelmach.

You should have done yourself a favor and jumped on the bandwagon when oil companies made this province rich. For myself and others, that black oil made my life fantastic. ITS A GROWING CITY. so what crime is up, the roads are just fine, and school will always be an issue.

[Toma]

Originally posted by 7thgenvic
blah blah blah :drool:

[7thgenvic]

Originally posted by Toma



Here is the flipside.... why do you think someone ELSE should own the resources of this province?

give it to the libertals...or even better give it back to the natives...i bet their'll figure out EXACLTY WHAT TO do with the oil reserves...

i'll make sure to tell the EVP of talisman tomorrow that he should convince the board to give more money to the government...I know its a convincing statement..I'm sure he'll bite

I know your sad that Alberta doesn't have F1 conditions on 17th and 14st...but im happy to say our roads are far better then Manitoba, Ontario and anything else thats east of the center of the universe

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by Toma


Albertans own their natural resources.... its in a littel document you may have heard of.... our CONSTITUTION... or BNA Act....and subsequent acts like the mines and minerals act etc....

Surprised you dont know that......


:rofl:

Anyways, even though it may be in our constitution, we are the not the ones pouring billions of dollars in investment out of our pockets into the oil sands/natural gas projects.

[Ice712]

Originally posted by Toma

I have no idea. I was just pointing out the extremely low return we ar egetting.

Cost of production on VERY expensive oil sands extraction is only $10-$14 a barrel.... so....

WOW, are we getting jipped.

I love how guys like this that have NO CLUE spout out "facts" like OPEX @ $10-$14/bbl...not even close. How about the capital to start these projects?

I have a question for TOMA who feels he is getting jipped...where do you work? What industry?

[icecreamvan]

If you don't partake in the risks, or invest your time and money, don't expect anything.

This is clearly a case of people wanting to get something without doing anything. Kind of reminds me of a lot of welfare and EI recepients.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Canmorite


:rofl:

Anyways, even though it may be in our constitution, we are the not the ones pouring billions of dollars in investment out of our pockets into the oil sands/natural gas projects.
Well, actually... we were.

Most of the oil sand production sites were identified many may moons ago. In terms of oils sands, very little exploration takes place since we KNOW where they are, and currnet sites have enough oil in them to keep us going for 100+ years.

Also, tons of far off sites were actaully discovered by Petro Canada when it was owned by tax payers under their forntier program.... when no one else would foot the bill for exploration, WE DID.....

Furthermore, modern oil sands extraction was developed and invented at the U of A .... research funded by tax payer dollars.

[Toma]

Originally posted by icecreamvan
If you don't partake in the risks, or invest your time and money, don't expect anything.

This is clearly a case of people wanting to get something without doing anything. Kind of reminds me of a lot of welfare and EI recepients.
What risk?

You think Encana, or Talisman etc.... when they happen to drill a dry hole taht they somehow foot the bill? Ever done taxes? Their losses are directly deductible of gains, so there really is no risk, unless their engineers suck and they miss every hole. However.... they happen to run at around 70% success.

Also, as mentioned in oils sands above... there is NO RISK. Taxpayer money found them, and tax payer money invented extraction techniques.

What risk?

[Toma]

Originally posted by Ice712


I love how guys like this that have NO CLUE spout out "facts" like OPEX @ $10-$14/bbl...not even close. How about the capital to start these projects?

I have a question for TOMA who feels he is getting jipped...where do you work? What industry?

We are not talking start-ups in the oils sands since they enjoy a break and pay only 1% in royalties till they have covered their capital expenditures.


$10-$14 is accurate for an existing op, and as I stated earlier, upto $18 to $25 for a new one.

[icecreamvan]

Originally posted by Toma

What risk?

You think Encana, or Talisman etc.... when they happen to drill a dry hole taht they somehow foot the bill? Ever done taxes? Their losses are directly deductible of gains, so there really is no risk, unless their engineers suck and they miss every hole. However.... they happen to run at around 70% success.


I'm going to ask you the same question regarding if I've ever done taxes. If $10 million was loss on a dry hole, do they get all $10 million back? Think about it, tax-whiz. ;)

And if there is no risk, why aren't you taking advantage of the current tax scheme and installing a pump-jack in your backyard? What's stopping you?

[icecreamvan]

By the way, much respect Toma. I know how you like to debate just to get a rouse out of people. ;)

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by Toma

Well, actually... we were.

Most of the oil sand production sites were identified many may moons ago. In terms of oils sands, very little exploration takes place since we KNOW where they are, and currnet sites have enough oil in them to keep us going for 100+ years.

Also, tons of far off sites were actaully discovered by Petro Canada when it was owned by tax payers under their forntier program.... when no one else would foot the bill for exploration, WE DID.....

Furthermore, modern oil sands extraction was developed and invented at the U of A .... research funded by tax payer dollars.

That I didn't know. Interesting.

[kaput]

.

[icecreamvan]

Originally posted by Toma

Well, actually... we were.

Most of the oil sand production sites were identified many may moons ago. In terms of oils sands, very little exploration takes place since we KNOW where they are, and currnet sites have enough oil in them to keep us going for 100+ years.

Also, tons of far off sites were actaully discovered by Petro Canada when it was owned by tax payers under their forntier program.... when no one else would foot the bill for exploration, WE DID.....

Furthermore, modern oil sands extraction was developed and invented at the U of A .... research funded by tax payer dollars.

Specifically, which modern oil sands extraction methods were invented at the U of A? Extraction's only half the story, what about refining costs? I'm sure that you're aware of the other side of the equation.

Also, when Petro Canada was sold, the puchase price would have reflected the value of the commodities. Therefore, the government would have received a lump sum payment to offset future benefits. What did the government do with that lump sum payment?

It's like choosing to take a smaller lump sum payment over an annuity when you win the lottery. The government chose to have their money up front and forgo all future benefits. How can you claim benefits when you've already been paid for them?

[R-Audi]

So for those that want the higher royalties.. (and the amount suggested)
How are you going to feel when gas prices go up? or when it costs more to heat your house? Or the unemployment rate rises because of the number of jobs lost? You all complain now... Just wait!

Its not just a matter of scraping the surface some of the companies pockets... this increase would shut down a lot of local business, and reduce the investment in the community. Think of the donations that have been made by local companies in the city...Pengrowth Saddledome, Talisman Centre.. various Art Gallery/public spaces donated by these companies... it goes on and on.

The Royalites do need to be increased...no doubt in that. but certinaly not at the level suggested. By doing this Stelmach will essentially be digging his own grave. This is what happens when a small town farmer runs the province!


For those who say the Oil/Gas is theirs.... your right. And you also have the right to buy the drilling rights.. pull it out of the ground.. get a pipeline, refine it.. and sell it on the market.
So what are you waiting for?

[bigboom]

Originally posted by Toma

What risk?

You think Encana, or Talisman etc.... when they happen to drill a dry hole taht they somehow foot the bill? Ever done taxes? Their losses are directly deductible of gains, so there really is no risk, unless their engineers suck and they miss every hole. However.... they happen to run at around 70% success.

Also, as mentioned in oils sands above... there is NO RISK. Taxpayer money found them, and tax payer money invented extraction techniques.

What risk?

wow are you really that dumb? you drill a dry hole and yes you can write off that as an expense against your income but that is still money the company puts out to drill that well. this reduces their income, how can you say they don't foot that bill? Companies only run those kind sof success rates because they have put enough money into the plays to learn the formation chracteristics and reservoir locations. They've paid for the siesmic, they've done all sorts of homework on it. its not 70% because there is that much gas in the ground.

Taxpayer money founded the oil sands? Do you realize how many billions of dollars are being spent up there every year in capital by companies? do you know how much capital is in the market because of expecatations of oil sands put in there by regular joe investors?

[Toma]

Originally posted by icecreamvan


I'm going to ask you the same question regarding if I've ever done taxes. If $10 million was loss on a dry hole, do they get all $10 million back? Think about it, tax-whiz. ;)

And if there is no risk, why aren't you taking advantage of the current tax scheme and installing a pump-jack in your backyard? What's stopping you?

LOL..... busted ;) Actually though in terms of royalties and taxes, they get huge breaks. No they dont get it all back, but their taxes are hugely deferred.

But you guys seem to support capitalism to its fullest, some peeps here and on other boards even suggesting we should get no royalties, and should ahve no ownership of our resources lol.

Such die hard capitalists should then realize.... in business you have costs. When your costs run higher then your earnings.... nite nite.... nature of the game. Then somoene better, more efficient takes your place.

[89coupe]

Toma thinks all Oil & Gas companies have money tree's growing in their offices and that it's "FREE". LOL.

[Toma]

Originally posted by R-Audi


The Royalites do need to be increased...no doubt in that. but certinaly not at the level suggested. By doing this Stelmach will essentially be digging his own grave. This is what happens when a small town farmer runs the province!


Nah, I dont buy the doom scenario. Places that have 100% nationalized their oil and gas are doing quite well, and they STILL have private O&G firms begging to get their foot in the door (or starting wars, buts thats a another ball of wax).

Big business is big business.... as long as there is money to be made, they will go in and try and make it.....

I am also not at all pinning all this on O&G. I mean, just like we need more transparency on Royalties, we need much more on how the government spends our money.

No doubt conservatives and Klein pissed it away.

No doubt some of the breaks and Royalty holidays the industry gets are over the top given the environment of the last couple years.

[icecreamvan]

I knew you didn't fully believe in this isht. :)

Maybe royalties need to be increased, maybe not, who knows? One thing for sure is that it shouldn't be increased to a point that quells industry growth (or sustainability for that matter).

What other boards are you talking about Toma? I'd like to visit. :D

Speaking of breaks, are you aware of the ARRP recommendations to do away with the breaks designed to encourage exploitation of low yield areas? Without these breaks, a lot of resources will be left in the ground. Not a very efficient way to go about things.

[kertejud]

Originally posted by icecreamvan
Is that oil as much yours, as it is for a newfie who just got off the plane in Calgary? What's the qualifier? Are you going to claim that everything is yours by virtue of geographic proximity?

If the Newfie is an Alberta resident paying Alberta taxes, of course its as much his, he is now as much a part of this province as I am.


If so, can I come dig up your flowerbed because I believe that there's oil underneath that's partly mine? Pretty please?

Okay, but I'm drilling in your living room.


What about the leases and investments made prior? Without appropriate grandfathering, the government is changing the rules of the game after companies have invested billions into developing crown land.

The oil companies have some high paid lawyers that will be able to see that royalty rates for minerals can always be changed.


This is similar to landlords unethically skyrocketing rents, except in this case the tenants had spent thousands on a brand new kitchen out of belief that rent will not fluctuate.

Well, its their fault for not reading the lease. The "landlord" has the right to change the rent whenever he wants. They benefitted from very low rent in a very nice neighborhood for too long.


Time and time again, the government has shown to be a poor manager of money. That additional royalty? Don't expect that to see a penny of it. I'm sure that the government has plenty of inefficient projects to initiate.

Well the difference was that before, people just didn't care. The economy was doing well, the debt was going down, we all got $400, times were great. But its clear that how this is all managed will determine the future of this government. With watchful eyes from all sides, this isn't something that will be swept under the rug. If the government raises royalty rates, people are going to expect results. If they don't, they are going to be asking for change.

[icecreamvan]

^ You make no sense, and in a few cases have supported my argument more than defend yours.

Clearly you've been unfortunate enough to have been endowed on the wrong side of the bell curve. My condolences.

[autosm]

There are more voters in this province that have nothing to do with the oil and gas Than do . In the end it will come down to public perception .

[icecreamvan]

If voters feel that the government ought to receive additional royalties on natural resources, then I want my fair share of the Alberta beef. Payment in 12oz Filet Mignon please.

[KappaSigma]

Simply put, the data used by the government was outdated when you compare it to current data. Data from 2005 is not even close to the data in the current model. Costs have gone up big time. The easy oil has already been tapped and now its onto the harder to reach oil.

Also, I believe that maybe an increase in royalty may be needed BTU seriously a gross royalty increase is just pure stupidty by the government. That will kill the industry when the O/G profit is all net taxes.

Once again, people who are claiming the O/G are making out liek bandits don't know the half of it. Yes it is a profitable industry but its very capital intensive and costs are crazy high.

[Mangina]

Originally posted by autosm
There are more voters in this province that have nothing to do with the oil and gas Than do . In the end it will come down to public perception .

If you can't figure out than oil and gas is the biggest industry in this province and how it has a huge, trickle down effect on everyone living here, you should pack up your things and move to greener pastures in Saskatchewan along with all the other geniuses.

[FatalError]

Originally posted by Toma
Maybe instead of riding MY coat tails, O&G should pay more then 9% for MY resources.

When did they start drilling in Eastern Europe? I agree you should move back there and stake a claim on your birth right.

[autosm]

Originally posted by Mangina


If you can't figure out than oil and gas is the biggest industry in this province and how it has a huge, trickle down effect on everyone living here, you should pack up your things and move to greener pastures in Saskatchewan along with all the other geniuses.

Did I say its not a big ? What I said was If the average Albertian living in a shitty apartment working at 7 eleven thinks the goverment is getting screwed. It will be hard for a oil company exec to convince him how hard it will be for all of us when the trickle down effect stops .He is already living the dream .

I will be here longer than you as my income in not dependent on oil and gas the least little bit .



"Payment in 12oz Filet Mignon please." Settle for a box of frozen patties ?

[kertejud]

Originally posted by icecreamvan
^ You make no sense, and in a few cases have supported my argument more than defend yours.

Clearly you've been unfortunate enough to have been endowed on the wrong side of the bell curve. My condolences.

You can't read but I'm on the wrong side of the bell curve?

Here's a simpiler version:

-If a Newfie is in Alberta, he is an Albertan, just like me.

-Leases and investments just give the company the permission and ability to extract the oil. The fact that it is on crown land means that the government can change royalty rates whenever it wants, this is in the constitution.

-Using your silly analogy, the "tenants" invested in a new kitchen despite knowing that the "landlord" is able to change rent. If they didn't know, they should have understood their lease agreement better. Not to mention that these tenants have been skipping out on much of their rent over the years, my sympathy for them grows thin.

-The LAST government was poor with managing money. This one will be much better at managing money because their future depends on it. If they make changes and don't collect, it will crumble.


Surely even you can understand this.

[Mangina]

Originally posted by autosm


Did I say its not a big ? What I said was If the average Albertian living in a shitty apartment working at 7 eleven thinks the goverment is getting screwed.



That hardly describes the average Albertan. Anyone with ambition and a little brains can make alot of money here. Everyone else blames oil and gas.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Mangina


That hardly describes the average Albertan. Anyone with ambition and a little brains can make alot of money here. Everyone else blames oil and gas.
Really..... so since only what... 16% work in oil and gas, where else is this free ride where a high school drop out can make $100k?

If for no other reason, I hope O&G suffers lol

[icecreamvan]

They really need to make a South Park episode on that. Blame O&G!

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Toma

Really..... so since only what... 16% work in oil and gas, where else is this free ride where a high school drop out can make $100k?

If for no other reason, I hope O&G suffers lol


Is that what you do?

[Mangina]

Originally posted by Toma

Really..... so since only what... 16% work in oil and gas, where else is this free ride where a high school drop out can make $100k?

If for no other reason, I hope O&G suffers lol

I did say you need "ambition and a little brains". If you're a high school drop out, you deserve to work at 7-11.

And oil and gas isn't a free ride.

[Majestic12]

Whether or not you work in the oil/gas industry, if you think you wouldn't be affected if the O&G industry in Alberta were to suffer, you are an idiot.

First hit... the roughnecks… the people out doing the drilling, field ops… basically a lot of small-town people. Then come the white-collar oil/gas workers… who needs geologists and engineers when you’re not doing anymore exploration or developing because the oilsands are no longer viable? Sure, the A&D people might have work for a while as oil companies sell of lands that they have no more interest in developing, but that wouldn’t last long. So there’s a bunch of layoffs there. Whoops…Mr. Engineer lost his job and now has to figure out how to make mortgage payments. He’s got to cut down on the luxury goods. No more golf, no more nice new clothes for a while, not as much eating out. Boom, retail sector and service industry gets hit as well.

You may not get hit hard, but oil and gas is such a vital part of the economy here that if it went downhill, Alberta’s economy would take nosedive as well. Just look at the NEP and what that did.

You may think that EnCana and other big oil companies are bluffing. Sure, maybe they are. But what if they aren’t?

So what happens if they are bluffing: Status quo. Alberta seems to be doing pretty damn well these days… richest province in the country, plenty of property development, etc. There is a gap between rich and poor that may be getting larger, but I don’t really see how that is the oil/gas industry’s fault. Is it that the poor are getting poorer, or that the rich are getting richer and the “poor” are staying where they are? In a capitalist society like we live in, there will always be the rich and the poor. But I’ll take having a few rich dudes and a vast majority of average people than have everyone be poor.

Now, if they’re NOT bluffing, and the royalty increase would actually make many projects not viable, then the scenario I mentioned comes true. The economy takes a downturn, and the oil companies go elsewhere to develop resources there until such time that changes are made yet again, or technology has progressed enough that the resources in Alberta become viable again.

Also, I find it questionable that the committee that made up the report is composed of exactly 0 people that currently work in the oil/gas industry. There are a bunch of peripheral people, like energy economists and ex-O&G people. But if you're going to make such drastic recommendations that could affect the province for years, shouldn't the board be balanced out with relevant views from all angles?

[kertejud]

Originally posted by Majestic12

You may not get hit hard, but oil and gas is such a vital part of the economy here that if it went downhill, Alberta’s economy would take nosedive as well. Just look at the NEP and what that did.


The NEP made it impossible to be profitable in the oil sands and was implemented knowing that. Trudeau and his government knew it would be devastating to Alberta but they went through with it anyway.

A roaylty increase would just reduce those profits, not eliminate them entirely by capping the price, which is the major difference here.



Also, I find it questionable that the committee that made up the report is composed of exactly 0 people that currently work in the oil/gas industry. There are a bunch of peripheral people, like energy economists and ex-O&G people. But if you're going to make such drastic recommendations that could affect the province for years, shouldn't the board be balanced out with relevant views from all angles?

They made it as unbiased as possible. If you have an o/g person then you need a Trudeau-economist as well. It would be a wash.

[Majestic12]

The point of mentioning the NEP wasn't for a direct comparison, it was just to show what happened when the oil/gas industry was crippled in Alberta.

[01RedDX]

.

[FatalError]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


Way to reveal your ignorance. "Go back to wherever" is such a tired old line. You know they're not going anywhere. Why don't you just force them? Closed-minded people need to come up with some fresh insults. Or just realize that not everyone will share their conservative points of view even if they were *gasp* born here.

Indeed, way to reveal it. I see my subtleties had the intended effect of drawing out the liberal whiners in the crowd.

It may be tired. It may be old. That my friend is irrelevant. What is relevant however is it's just as applicable as ever, and heartfelt too.

As an aside, just because you are on the other side of the fence doesn't make you open minded by default, it just means you're closed minded in a different way.

[01RedDX]

.

[msouther]

I don't work in the Oil and Gas industry, but it does relate directly to my job. If there are jobs lost because the oil and gas industry slows down, then there isn't nearly as much of a demand for what I sell. I honestly believe that everything in this province revolves around oil and gas. What will happen with all of the other businesses (housing industry, retail, automotive and much more) who all reap the rewards of the big money around here? I think it is unfortunate that there are poor people still living in Alberta, and they are the ones who need this money the most. I also agree with a previous comment that the rich are getting richer and the poor are staying at the same level. I also agree that we already have huge surpluses that have been frivalously spent by the government. Give them more money and they will just waste more.

I guess I have a different perspective on this whole thing because I am fortunate to earn a good living and enjoy some extra financial freedom which I do attribute to the oil and gas industy. I would rather have things stay the way they are than receive a cheque like Ralph gave us of $400, even it I got it every month. Just for the record, I have never heard of us getting $400 a month if the proposed changes are implemented. I was merely using that as an extreme comparison to show that I am happy the way things are now.

This is totally just how I feel and I honestly don't know much about the oil and gas industry from the business side of things and I don't hold investments that are solely oil and gas related. Interesting reading everyone's comments because I can learn from this.

[FatalError]

Originally posted by 01RedDX

You have a right to say whatever you want, but let me clear this up a little.

There's nothing subtle about telling a perceived immigrant to move back where they came from. That's why I felt compelled to whine liberally? about it because you are in fact, insulting this country. (Multiculturalism 101: Past, Present and Future of Canada)

Actually I was hoping that what you wrote was not heartfelt until you confirmed that it was. :cry:

But you're right about that not being open-minded by default stuff, mind-blowing.

It's not about telling an immigrant (perceived or otherwise) to go anywhere because at some point we can all trace our roots outside of Canada. So let's not be too obtuse here ok? Thanks.

Reflecting back on Toma's comment:


Maybe instead of riding MY coat tails, O&G should pay more then 9% for MY resources.
It appears what he's actually trying to accomplish is secure himself a status card and a plot on a reservation because after all they are "his resources". Just think Toma. You. Status card. Free drugs. Free school. Free truck. Damn. All of your communist wet dreams would come true....for a while...until you had nothing left to complain about not being handed on a silver platter. Yup, there'd be old Toma with his ten university degree's, a tinfoil hat, sitting in a back alley on 8th ave. babbling incoherently about the ghost airplane at the pentagon found in an out of phase message unicast from an NSA outpost on the dark side of Phobos. :thumbsup:

[01RedDX]

.

[Toms-SC]

Let the market crash.

[Celica TVS3]

Reading the posts there are about 3 people on this entire post know enough about the issue to voice an opinion, while the others simply like to argue with people on the internet, and Toma - who straddles the two categories.

I can relate to Toma because I shared a similar ideology not long ago. As young ambitious socialist that thought 'big business' was taking too much and giving little. Look at the profits; look at the wages I used to say. What do I get, where's my share? But as my liberal arts degree (Poli Sci) sat on the shelf, collecting dust on a bookshelf sagging with the classic thinkers in political thought, I moved into the real world and my views changed. Perhaps in the future when you're degree sits collecting dust, and you can see how political decisions directly affect the economy around you, when you aren’t so insulated by rhetoric and idealism, you'll understand, you'll see things differently. Until then do this province a favour and hop off the soap box and quit portraying yourself an expert in areas you simply don't understand.

[autosm]

I think the only thing to worry about is the price /Demand of oil declining in the world . A few billion in royalties should not make as much of a dent in the whole thing .

The oil sands is a long term thing not quick money .The major players know this .

If they pull out there are many more waiting to take there place .

Alberta survived the last crash and will survive what ever the future has for us . The major difference is the USA knows they have a reliable / politically stable source of oil up here.

I for one would be better off it realestate dropped in price . Whos got 500k for a lake lot any way ?

[FatalError]

Originally posted by Celica TVS3
Reading the posts there are about 3 people on this entire post know enough about the issue to voice an opinion, while the others simply like to argue with people on the internet, and Toma - who straddles the two categories.

I can relate to Toma because I shared a similar ideology not long ago. As young ambitious socialist that thought 'big business' was taking too much and giving little. Look at the profits; look at the wages I used to say. What do I get, where's my share? But as my liberal arts degree (Poli Sci) sat on the shelf, collecting dust on a bookshelf sagging with the classic thinkers in political thought, I moved into the real world and my views changed. Perhaps in the future when you're degree sits collecting dust, and you can see how political decisions directly affect the economy around you, when you aren’t so insulated by rhetoric and idealism, you'll understand, you'll see things differently. Until then do this province a favour and hop off the soap box and quit portraying yourself an expert in areas you simply don't understand.

Are you directing the commentary toward Toma?

[Toma]

EDMONTON - Big Oil's Big Threat to slash investment if Alberta hikes its oil and gas royalties has triggered a Big Yawn among many Albertans.

On the heels of an exclusive Edmonton Journal / Calgary Herald poll showing that a whopping 88 per cent of Albertans believe they're not getting their "fair share" from current energy royalties, I conducted my own mini-survey Wednesday.

After polling a dozen execs at a wide range of non-energy firms -- from new vehicle dealers to sofware firms, mining outfits, builders, food processors and corporate recruiters -- the results confirm that Big Oil's furious counter-attack isn't gaining much support.

While most execs I talked to admit they're not intimately familiar with all the recommendations in the royalty review panel's recent 104-page report, or the contents of a subsequent report by Auditor-General Fred Dunn, most believe it's high time to hike royalties.

Several said the province's energy-fuelled economic boom has actually been a negative for many companies outside the oilpatch, since it has driven up the cost of labour and materials, while making it tougher to attract workers.

Moreover, the tough talk from such oilpatch execs as EnCana Corp. CEO Randy Eresman -- who recently threatened to slash his company's 2008 capital spending plans in Alberta by $1 billion if royalties are increased -- seems to be backfiring.

"My back gets up a little bit when EnCana says we'll spend $1 billion less, and there will be fewer hotel rooms booked, and less restaurant spending," said Ed Rodenburg, CEO of Edmonton-based Lilydale Foods.

"As a businessman in this province, that would actually be OK with me. For those of us who aren't in the energy industry, all that's happened in the last two or three years is that our operating costs have gone up significantly. So, quite honestly, a slowdown in development in Alberta would be a positive thing, from our perspective."

David Aplin, CEO of Edmonton-based David Aplin Recruiting, a professional recruitment firm with offices across Canada, is also unsympathetic to the major energy companies.

"Deferring the (oilsands) royalties until companies got a return seemed like a pretty decent business decision when oil prices were in the teens and the twenties. But here we are with $70 or $80 oil, so it's a totally different scenario," he said.

"If you had another 10 panels look at it, they would all conclude that there's been substantive changes that make it mandatory that the government look at this, and that it likely should be charging more going forward."

Ashif Mawji, founder and CEO of Edmonton-based Upside Software, says it's reasonable for energy companies to expect a "transition period" before a new royalty regime is introduced.

"But companies need to be realistic that things will change, and they will have to pay more. They should just work with the government to come up with the right balance," he said.

Like Rodenburg, Mawji said slowing down the torrid pace of oilsands development wouldn't be a bad thing, if it reduces the rate of inflation, makes housing more affordable, and allows governments to catch up on their glaring infrastructure deficits.

Several of Upside's 135 employees have left for Saskatchewan, where living costs are lower. "It really boils down to cost of living. If you look at the growth in salaries it hasn't corresponded to the growth in house prices," he said.

Mawji said his father's hotel business in Whitecourt has also suffered. The hotel was forced to shut its restaurant due to chronic staff shortages, and it also put off expansion plans, due to soaring construction costs.

Gary Nash, CEO of Liberty Mines, an Edmonton-based junior nickel producer with properties in Ontario, gives the six-member royalty review panel two thumbs up for a job well done. He too thinks rates should be raised.

[Celica TVS3]

Originally posted by FatalError


Are you directing the commentary toward Toma?

yeah

[icecreamvan]

Wall Street to Alberta: Don't be ‘so stupid'
SHAWN MCCARTHY

From Friday's Globe and Mail

October 5, 2007 at 12:14 AM EDT

After years of carefully cultivating an image as an investors' paradise, the Alberta government is getting a rough ride on Wall Street over proposed royalty changes that would significantly reduce profits for oil companies that invest in the province.

Accustomed to dealing with political risk in places like Russia and Venezuela, investors and analysts are stunned that Alberta – which has sold itself as Texas North – has apparently taken such an aggressive approach to the industry that has spawned so much wealth there.

“The Alberta government is doing a classic ‘shoot yourself in the foot' strategy,” said Fadel Gheit, an influential New York-based analyst with Oppenheimer & Co.

“It's tried and true: If you really want to hurt your economy, start raising taxes on industries that are really basic to the lifeblood of your economy … It's so stupid – I thought these people were more sophisticated than that.”

Mr. Gheit said energy investors will be wary about Alberta, at least until there is some reassurance that the province is not looking to drive down expected returns on investment through higher taxes.

“They should attract investors, not repel investors. They should put out the welcome mat to bring more money into the province, and market themselves as the friendly, open-for-business place.”

That's exactly the message the provincial government has tried to convey over the years, as former premier Ralph Klein and a parade of ministers visited the North American financial capital to prospect for investment in the oil sands.

Two years ago, Mr. Klein and representatives from several Alberta-based companies brought horses and riders from the Calgary Stampede to perform in front of the New York Stock Exchange.

Mr. Klein met with The Wall Street Journal and BusinessWeek and Forbes magazines to tout the potential of the oil sands and the welcoming investment climate in Alberta. He also participated in a conference call with clients and investors at JPMorgan investment bank in which he promoted the “very attractive investment opportunity” that existed in Alberta.

This past May, provincial Finance Minister Lyle Oberg returned to the city to assure analysts and investors that the new government of Premier Ed Stelmach was equally committed to a business-friendly investment climate. “There was never any indication there would be a move like this,” said one American Canada-watcher who was at the lunch.

In an effort to reassure investors, Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight is scheduled to visit New York and Boston early next month – after the government has responded to the royalty report.

At a Lehman Brothers' energy conference last month, Canadian companies like EnCana Corp., Petro-Canada and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. presented their rosy prospects to a room full of investors at the Sheraton Hotel in mid-town Manhattan. They gave no indication of the bombshell that would be dropped less than three weeks later.

Several money managers said in interviews that they are re-evaluating their view of Alberta in light of the proposed royalty changes, which comes a year after investors were hammered by the federal government's decision to end tax advantages for income trusts.

“Any time somebody changes the tax regime or the regulatory regime in a meaningful way, it's a negative,” said one fund manager, who spoke on the condition he not be named. “They have pitched themselves as investor friendly, and have sought out investment, and this isn't really the best way to do it.”

The province has yet to decide on a course of action following the review committee's recommendations. And the committee insists the industry will remain highly profitable under the recommended changes, that Alberta is now out of sync with other major jurisdictions on the tax take from its resources sector.

[Paul]

Simply

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

[Toma]

^^^^
That "article" is 100% fraud....... typical of oil and gas morons trying to spread mis-information, and "re-direcion" http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/

Aside from it being a fraud, its misdirection "value" is... well, like the article, a fraud...

Like I posted earlier....

If you believe:
1) That spending on a luxury is the same as profiting on a non renewable necessity
2) That corporations have more rights then people


Well.... I dunno wtf you were thinking posting that.

And BTW... Oil and gas can go overseas anytime they please,,,, its a wide open market everywhere but Alberta. They can try Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Congo.... :drool: :poosie:

[89coupe]

Originally posted by Paul
Simply

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

That is great!

[autosm]

"( And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.


"(Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier )"




They tried Iraq and look how that is turning out .
:thumbsdow

[Gainsbarre]

Originally posted by Paul
Simply

......

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

That's funny...I found this

http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/

"Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of "Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics." Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it. "

Sounds more like it was written by a twelve year old who hasn't got a clue about how fiscal policy works.

[Toma]

Originally posted by 89coupe


That is great!
Wow... how did I not see you trying to make this into something its not.

The article is a Fraud, and has NO relations to oil and gas anyway.

But you O&G guys.... the pillars of accuracy and accountability :nut:

As a side note.... do you know HOW MANY O&G MORONS have posted or emailed this fraudulent and clearly unrelated article trying to use it to somehow plea their non existent case?? LOL :rofl:

[89coupe]

Rumor has it if the government implements the full royalty increases, it will cut 20% of most Oil&Gas companies cash flow and could possibly reduce their share prices by half. :eek:

Clear up some cash flow so you can buy the cheap shares. Big money to be made on this HUGE underturn.

[bigboom]

Originally posted by Toma

Wow... how did I not see you trying to make this into something its not.

The article is a Fraud, and has NO relations to oil and gas anyway.

But you O&G guys.... the pillars of accuracy and accountability :nut:

As a side note.... do you know HOW MANY O&G MORONS have posted or emailed this fraudulent and clearly unrelated article trying to use it to somehow plea their non existent case?? LOL :rofl:

the principles are exactly the same. while it doesnt deal with finances it still works the same way.

you're great at causing shit especially in an industry you do not understand. if you worked in the industry and understood what actually occurs i may pay attention to you.

[thrasher22]

Toma, stop making us all look dumb, that article is retarded.
The entire basis of it is based around the testimonials of three people.
1. A food distributer
2. A "job finder" (which could be related, but nothing he says is)
3. Someone who owns a software company.
4. A "junior" nickle miner

How many of them are related to the industry... even slightly? Did any of them shed light on WHY royalties should go up? Did any of them offer any insight on the subject? Offer an alternate solution? No.
The whole argument is about as informed as an infomercial.
This, like all your posts in this thread, is full of biased, uneducated facts and has no sense of how the world works.

As has been posted over and over, bringing in new royalties will hurt the "trickle down effect". Without oil big wigs spending money left and right, who is going to buy hot dogs from 7-11? If less people are buying their hotdogs, 7-11 will have to cut wages. What then?!?! They'll STILL have a low standard of living, NO not because of oil development, because they work bottom rung jobs (no offense if you work there). Why can't you accept basic economics?
To summarize, you're a idiot :) are you just mad that cost of living has gone up and you don't have a job (as you have posted)? That would not only give you some insight, but... increase your standard of living relative to the current inflation? ... just throwing that out there...

[Toma]

Originally posted by bigboom


the principles are exactly the same. while it doesnt deal with finances it still works the same way.

you're great at causing shit especially in an industry you do not understand. if you worked in the industry and understood what actually occurs i may pay attention to you.
Oh please..... like how are any of the "principles" the same? Please please please... I am VERy curious as to the logic. I am unbelievably curious as to how an inferior mind(s) work :poosie:

You guys are real good for a laugh. You bring into "evidence" a BS article (that even in it own context is flawed), and when we SHOW you its BS, you still stand by it....

Reminds me of the other BS the rest of the O&G industry is pedaling :rofl:

[Toma]

Originally posted by thrasher22
Toma, stop making us all look dumb, that article is retarded.
The entire basis of it is based around the testimonials of three people.
1. A food distributer
2. A "job finder" (which could be related, but nothing he says is)
3. Someone who owns a software company.
4. A "junior" nickle miner

Kinda like the O&G industry trying to DICTATE policy on how to run a province....



This, like all your posts in this thread, is full of biased, uneducated facts and has no sense of how the world works. LOL... uneducated FACTS? ;) Oh brother.... what do your friends call you? An Ox-y-MORON?


As has been posted over and over, bringing in new royalties will hurt the "trickle down effect". Ahhhh, so where are your FACTS to prove your conclusion? Forget prove... how about support even a little? I suppose YOU (and the O&G gurus) are now better economists then the U of A ones, the U of C ones, and others the government consulted?


Without oil big wigs spending money left and right, who is going to buy hot dogs from 7-11? If less people are buying their hotdogs, 7-11 will have to cut wages. What then?!?! Yes, that is a COMMON sight at my 7-11. CEO of Encana buying hotdogs for the boys, all crowded around the slurpee machine


Why can't you accept basic economics? Maybe cause I went to University and got past the basics, and can therefore recognize yours (an others) flawed reasoning of the basics ;)


To summarize, you're a idiot :) are you just mad that cost of living has gone up and you don't have a job (as you have posted)? That would not only give you some insight, but... increase your standard of living relative to the current inflation? ... just throwing that out there...
You did it! My years of psychotherapy perfectly summarized. I owe you! :thumbsup:

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Toma

Yes, that is a COMMON sight at my 7-11. CEO of Encana buying hotdogs for the boys, all crowded around the slurpee machine



And this is why you have no credibility. You take a very simple concept (people throughout the economy are making more money, and thus buy more consumer goods, thus causing more demand), and either misinterpret it horribly, or willingly ignore what it really means because you can't stand to pass up an opportunity to run your mouth, regardless of how out of context it is.

[Majestic12]

Originally posted by Antonito


And this is why you have no credibility. You take a very simple concept (people throughout the economy are making more money, and thus buy more consumer goods, thus causing more demand), and either misinterpret it horribly, or willingly ignore what it really means because you can't stand to pass up an opportunity to run your mouth, regardless of how out of context it is.

:werd:

I don't see how difficult a concept it is to understand.
When a bunch of the biggest companies in the city announce plans to move investment elsewhere, isn't it obvious that there will be repercussions within the province? Sure, maybe big bad oil companies will invest elsewhere leavnig Alberta with its precious oil undeveloped, but those who will suffer are the peons in the oilfields and in the offices. Less money to invest = fewer jobs = less spending money = fewer consumer consumption = even less money to go around.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Antonito


And this is why you have no credibility. You take a very simple concept (people throughout the economy are making more money, and thus buy more consumer goods, thus causing more demand), and either misinterpret it horribly, or willingly ignore what it really means because you can't stand to pass up an opportunity to run your mouth, regardless of how out of context it is.
LOL.... come one buddy. Puhlease. You bafoons took a fraudulent article, took it way out of context, and now hold it as your holy grail........

..............And now you comment on my credibility..... ???

hahhahhahahahaha :rofl: lol. You guys make me laugh lol.

[kertejud]

Originally posted by Antonito
You take a very simple concept (people throughout the economy are making more money, and thus buy more consumer goods, thus causing more demand), and either misinterpret it horribly, or willingly ignore what it really means because you can't stand to pass up an opportunity to run your mouth, regardless of how out of context it is.

Trickle-Down economics is definitely a very simple concept. So simple in fact, that the likes of Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Gee-Dub base their economic principles around it. I'm not saying there isn't a trickle-down effect, I'm saying that when it comes down to it, corporations look out for themselves before they will give a damn about anybody else. Its also a horrible economic system if you've ever noticed the U.S. debt as well as regions which suffered corporations looking out for their own best interest despite getting tax breaks and handouts. Oil companies will quell investment whether we raise royalties or whether the cost of oil goes down. At least with the former, we get more to better prepare for the economic apocalypse which will inetivably follow.

Trickle down economics is good for retail, but you wont find it paying for healthcare (still a public institution, generally this is the area in which people all become pinkos. If heatlhcare was private, HMOs could make more money, so they could pay their doctors more, who can buy more stuff, so the clerks get paid more...), education, roads, police, public transport etc.

Alberta currently has ~$15B in its Heritage Fund. Norway has ~$100B. Alaska has about $30B (and this is with the ~$1500 dividends all the residents get, which they can use to buy goods, giving people more jobs...)

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Toma

LOL.... come one buddy. Puhlease. You bafoons took a fraudulent article, took it way out of context, and now hold it as your holy grail........

..............And now you comment on my credibility..... ???

hahhahhahahahaha :rofl: lol. You guys make me laugh lol.

Glad you could lump me in with "everybody".

I also enjoy how, because you have no way to refute what I said, you have to resort to trollism. How's that for bafoonery? If you can't actually say anything intelligent, maybe you should learn to just let it go, instead of looking like an idiot.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by kertejud


Trickle-Down economics is definitely a very simple concept. So simple in fact, that the likes of Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Gee-Dub base their economic principles around it. I'm not saying there isn't a trickle-down effect, I'm saying that when it comes down to it, corporations look out for themselves before they will give a damn about anybody else. Its also a horrible economic system if you've ever noticed the U.S. debt as well as regions which suffered corporations looking out for their own best interest despite getting tax breaks and handouts. Oil companies will quell investment whether we raise royalties or whether the cost of oil goes down. At least with the former, we get more to better prepare for the economic apocalypse which will inetivably follow.

Trickle down economics is good for retail, but you wont find it paying for healthcare (still a public institution, generally this is the area in which people all become pinkos. If heatlhcare was private, HMOs could make more money, so they could pay their doctors more, who can buy more stuff, so the clerks get paid more...), education, roads, police, public transport etc.

Alberta currently has ~$15B in its Heritage Fund. Norway has ~$100B. Alaska has about $30B (and this is with the ~$1500 dividends all the residents get, which they can use to buy goods, giving people more jobs...)

Trickle down economics is scary when there is not a demand for workers, as shown in the States. In Calgary however there is a big demand, and so the trickle down theory actually works, as evidenced by the insane wages a lot of people are making.

[autosm]

Well I think it really boils down to. Where are they going to go to get this oil when they pull out of Alberta ? Natural Gas aside we have a huge reserve of oil that is politically stable . Second largest in the world .

Yes it is not easy to get but its way easyer than getting it from Iraq and other countries like it .


Why do you think the Saudis are driving on gold paved highways ? Have you driven on highway 2 lately ? Not exactly what you would expect leading to the worlds #2 largest oil supply.

We as Albertians / Canadians deserve to be in charge of the oil not mulit national corperations that have been kicked out of other countries for the same things .


Alberta currently has ~$15B in its Heritage Fund. Norway has ~$100B. Alaska has about $30B (and this is with the ~$1500 dividends all the residents get, which they can use to buy goods, giving people more jobs...)
Its time alberta got more .

[Toma]

So far, we have beaten down the O&G guys to the point where most of them have accepted that we need more money from our oil..... the 9% we get at the end of the day is ajoke, the royalty holidays and credits for oil sands is an even bigger joke.... they know that, and were laughing at our stupidity for the last several decades. I heard one CEO chuckling to himself and he laughingly said "I cant believe we got away with it this long" lol .... true story....

The sticking point now is gas and gas royalties. I have no opinion on that much beyond the fact the O&G is/was one of the most corrupt businesses on earth, and they always "mananage".

As for Alberta hitting some recession ..... times change. Industry's change. This oil boom is stifling creativity, research , interest, funding and work in other fields. There is more to life then oil and gas, and just like many "whaling towns" of yore didn't die when whaling died, (they simply adopted new innovation and new industry).... even if oil completely collapses one day.... we will manage.

[Toma]

Originally posted by autosm
Well I think it really boils down to. Where are they going to go to get this oil when they pull out of Alberta ? Natural Gas aside we have a huge reserve of oil that is politically stable . Second largest in the world .

Yes it is not easy to get but its way easyer than getting it from Iraq and other countries like it .


Why do you think the Saudis are driving on gold paved highways ? Have you driven on highway 2 lately ? Not exactly what you would expect leading to the worlds #2 largest oil supply.

We as Albertians / Canadians deserve to be in charge of the oil not mulit national corperations that have been kicked out of other countries for the same things .


Alberta currently has ~$15B in its Heritage Fund. Norway has ~$100B. Alaska has about $30B (and this is with the ~$1500 dividends all the residents get, which they can use to buy goods, giving people more jobs...)
Its time alberta got more .
no no.... remember.... the oil & G companies will leave Alberta for better economic conditions.... :rofl:

Good post :thumbsup:

[icecreamvan]

I like reading Toma's posts, especially on days that he's obviously replaced his meds with M&Ms.

:rofl: