want a green future? nationalise Canada's oil industry.

[schurchill39]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[black13]

I've wondered about this as well. Look at all those other countries that have state owned companies. They're all still making huge profits despite all the corruption so why not in Canada?

Is everyone just afraid of working for the government?

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Toma


Petro canada was always profitable, and when certain projects and exploration were NOT profitable, they did it anyway because they knew it HAD to be done.

Second, oil sands extraction was invented at the University of alberta, before any profiteers dared touch it. Because people with brains do stuff becayse it needs to be done, not to make a buck.

National oil company cant lose money, any more than the blood suckers can. It defies logic.

It was bad for our economy during the 1980s oil surplus. In the 90s they sold off majority control. Even when they had majority control its not like politicians were running it. It functioned as a private company with normal business operations and oil executives except with government controls on who could buy stock. The government simply owned most of it but did not make business decisions. Technically it was a state trading enterprise and subject to GATT rules like any other company, so not really a government RUN buisness. As soon the oil surplus happened and it ceased to be profitable the government (ie investors) dumped it. Like any investor would. It was profitable because of oil prices at the time. Not due to politics. When it stopped being profitable the government sold off it majority stake.

A State trading enterprise is still subject to the market like anything else, government being a majority stake holder or not. And it is still vulnerable to oil prices. In times like this a state owned enterprise simply forces all taxpayers to eat the losses instead of just people that chose to invest.

If privately owned the dips in oil price doesn't screw the public coffers over as much. Just the people that own the company.

A government is people elected by the masses. And the masses are asses. I would rather ownership be held by people that know what they are doing as opposed to a politician who is only concerned about the next 4 years as opposed to long term success in a business.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by black13
I've wondered about this as well. Look at all those other countries that have state owned companies. They're all still making huge profits despite all the corruption so why not in Canada?

Is everyone just afraid of working for the government?

Private oil companies here HAVE been making money. They just are not state owned. But keep in mind Petro-Canada was a state trading enterprise. Functioned as a public company and there were private trades of stock. The government was simply majority stake holder but did not have direct control over the management unless they chose to exercise it. Just like a majority stake holder in a private company. They show up 4 times a year to board meetings, cock block anything they really disagree with but aside from that the company executives make the decisions.

If our energy was state owned now taxpayers would all be getting ass-fucked and screaming "why the hell is energy state owned!"

State owned is awesome at 100 bucks a barrel. If its not then its political suicide.

My company has seen our stock drop recently, but nothing we haven't seen before. Steady the course. It happens. But a 20% drop in stock for a publicly owned company causes the opposition, and ergo media, to scream "This government has lost 10 Billion in revenue owning this company! We need to dump them!" And the government, concerned about the next election, will. Which causes the stock price to drop and reduces the investment income available to the company to maintain the business.

Voters, and ergo politicians, are fickle investors. No wants to whether the storm, everyone wants change every 4 years. Adds additional instability to an already unstable market. Best leave it to people who "get it" and are willing to forge ahead through bad times to make it work.

[googe]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Pristine land? That land can barely grow fucking trees on it it is so shitty. The reclaimed land after a project is completed is better off for it.

The fuck? Can barely grow trees?

Boreal forest, maybe you've heard of it...?

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Toma
Where's the flaw in the argument?

Like most of your "sources" it's full of lies by omission and most likely written by someone who doesn't know how the oilsands work, let alone ever worked in the industry. Correctly writing the first few sentences would completely ruin the slant the writer wanted though.

It's not all "pristine land", go and see exactly what "grows" in muskeg. It's not much and when it does, it's stunted and wilted.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by googe


The fuck? Can barely grow trees?

Boreal forest, maybe you've heard of it...?

Originally posted by FraserB

It's not all "pristine land", go and see exactly what "grows" in muskeg. It's not much and when it does, it's stunted and wilted.

Exactly. There are MILLIONS OF trees up there... scraggly ass, useless trees. You (googe) should see the trees on the reclaimed sites though. Not that you've probably ever even been there

Originally posted by Toma

Second, oil sands extraction was invented at the University of alberta

Uh... er... that's a bit of an overstretch there chief.

"Further progress was made on oil sands research in the 1940s with an extraction process patent issued to Dr. Karl A. Clark in 1948,[3] laying the foundation for investment in oil sands development."

And where did Dr. Clark work at? Probably that place on Karl Clark Road in the Research Park on the south end of Edmonton. Typical Toma revisionist history, par for the course.

[Toma]

It's like you discover a rare valuable plant only grows in your yard.

You can harvest and sell your self. Low cost. Take all profit.

Or you can pay someone to harvest, a bit more cost, but still get all profit.

You can hire a company to manage it for you, a bit more cost, but you still get all the profit...

Or, you can give it away to a company, but take 70% of the revenue like say Norway.

Or...

You can do it like Alberta. Give it away for 10% after subsidy, royalty holidays. AND be.on the hook for the damage, increase household operating costs and infrastructure, and end up in DEBT over the whole ordeal.

Its a no brainer.


The oil 'boom' costs us, and the more boom, the more.people move here, more demand for services and infrastructire, and massive cash flows.out of the province...... and its not self sustaining, instead we get talks of 'cutting services" and continual debt and deficit, and talk of selling off profitable public owned things like utilities and transmission companies.

He, Arizona had to sell off government buildings and lease them back. What a sweet deal for an investor.


Duh.

[Toma]

"Albertans have never received more than 20 per cent of the rent in the tar sands, and since 1997 have averaged only nine per cent," says the Parkland report.

Since 1986 industry has taken home $260 billion in pre-tax profits while the public, the owner of the resource, has received less than $25 billion or less than six per cent of the total value.

"If the long-standing trend of low royalty rates in the tar sands industry and the oil and gas sector as a whole continues, Albertans can expect to forgo significant and increasing amounts of potential revenue," warns the report.

Low royalty rates spur production

The Alberta government now offers the world's richest companies such as Exxon Mobil and Shell, unprecedented profit sharing arrangements in the oil sands.

Until these foreign companies recoup their original multi-billion investments, they pay between one per cent to nine per cent royalty on bitumen. Companies that have earned their capital and building costs must pay a royalty ranging from 25 per cent at $55 a barrel to 40 per cent at $120 a barrel.

But companies do not pay a royalty on the global price of oil but on bitumen, a viscous crude, based on a valuation system developed by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The government does not publish these prices.

Alberta's weak royalty regime for the oil sands as well as its natural gas resources has been the subject of many reports as well as a driver of rapid industry development.

"Alberta has relatively low royalty and tax rates for the oil sands, which promotes greater production," found a 2008 report by the US Council on Foreign Relations. Moreover the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned that both Alberta and Canada were giving their petroleum resources away in 2008.

[Toma]

There are 2 dyno companies.... One private, one public. I manage the public one.

For whatever reason, the private one is better at generating profit. Maybe they use leaded gas, use cheaper equipment, use fewer emplyees, or are just better at the job.

The private one generates $100,000 in profit, and pays a 'royalty rate' of 9 percent on that profit. So, the direct benefit to the tax payer is $9,000. Worse then that, it's foreign owned. So the $91,000 profit leaves the country as well, hence putting downward pressure on our currency, and our economy since the money is not spent here.

The public one, sucking wind, but still managed 1/3 the profits. Which directly benefits the public, and is spent HERE, therefore benefits our currency and economy.

So... $33k to the public coffers, or $9k?

Spent here, or leached away into warren bufets picket book?

No brainer again.

[rx7_turbo2]

Why the fuck can't this tool combine everything into one post

[heavyD]

LOL you only have to look at how things run at CBC to know this would be a terrible idea.

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by Toma




Second, oil sands extraction was invented at the University of alberta, before any profiteers dared touch it. Because people with brains do stuff becayse it needs to be done, not to make a buck.

I agree. We need to ban university education so their researchers stop destroying the environment.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[hampstor]

I'm actually curious how much the Government would have to spend to nationalize the entire industry. That's a lot of companies they'd have to buy up.

[killramos]

Originally posted by hampstor


I'm actually curious how much the Government would have to spend to nationalize the entire industry. That's a lot of companies they'd have to buy up.

It would make America's debt/GDP look like peanuts :P

[sabad66]

Originally posted by hampstor
I'm actually curious how much the Government would have to spend to nationalize the entire industry. That's a lot of companies they'd have to buy up.

Might as well take it a step further and not even buy them out. Just seize all their assets like Venezuela did

[Toma]

Buy them? Just keep cranking royalties till either 'they are fair', or until the companies get up an leave.

We would only need less than 1/4 the current production if it was state owned.

Remember, they pay no royalties effectively till they are 'in the money', royalty holiday lol.... No reason to feel bad.

Norway's model deserves serious sturdy and consideration.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[killramos]

Originally posted by Toma
Buy them? Just keep cranking royalties till either 'they are fair', or until the companies get up an leave.

We would only need less than 1/4 the current production if it was state owned.

Remember, they pay no royalties effectively till they are 'in the money', royalty holiday lol.... No reason to feel bad.

Norway's model deserves serious sturdy and consideration.

» Click image for larger version

You need to stop comparing Canada to Norway. We have nothing in common as to how our oil development works.

For example we both produce about 1.8 million barrels a day of conventional oil production. However Norway does with with about 4,000 wells drilled in the last 60 years!

Canada? We drill 25,000 wells a year.

The Norwegions have a money tree, Our resources? Not so much. You need to stop living in the 40's.

Guess what, our countries economy wouldn't exist without petroleum and the subsidies that make the industry feasible on a world scale.