Alberta Oil Royalty about theatre not income.

[cyberclark]

[FONT=&quot]Province links record land sale to royalties changes

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]He is muddling facts to suit his purpose trying to legitimatize the phony oil royalty sheet published in order to get them elected last time. Lies compounding lies.

The "new regime" they published at the last election showed impossible royalty to be charged 2 years after the election. No money was ever collected at these rates! These turkeys are not in the business of increasing royalty!

This same .PDF shows the huge increases. It starts out the oil sands royalty goes to 25% (our original deal) when oil gets to 55.00 per barrel Canadian. This same publication reduced our take from USD to Can$. However, our present rate and rate at the time of this publication was less than 19% as was bounced by AG Fred Dunn.

The same sheet increments royalty by about 1% for every 10 dollars Can increase in the price of oil. When oil gets up to 90 dollars we get 38.00 per barrel.

Liepert scrapped this when it started to come in effect. Now, we are back to the old royalty of less than 16% less the addition of a new Alberta Make Work Program that was announced as being a redraft of the published oil regime but in reality has nothing to do with it at all!

What this new "tweak" does is give away a huge amount of Alberta revenue. The Journal ran a story about 2 weeks ago where a company was drilling to 2700 feet and made a million dollars profit with the subsidy of the new regime. They did not have to produce anything to collect this. Their intention as outlined in the article was to continue drilling wells for profit.

Nothing will change until you get rid of the Conservatives! Wild Rose is simply another right wing charade being run by Dinning's crew to keep the fire at Stelmach's feet.

If you want anything left of this province at all, turf them all out!

[/FONT]

 

[Scott Free]

[FONT=&quot]The Journal ran a story about 2 weeks ago where a company was drilling to 2700 feet and made a million dollars profit with the subsidy of the new regime. They did not have to produce anything to collect this. Their intention as outlined in the article was to continue drilling wells for profit.

[/FONT]

There is a local company here that will invest your money in oil companies that guarantee they'll go bankrupt. I don't know exactly how it works but the government pays money for the exploration and somehow investors get huge returns.

 

[cyberclark]

Not quite on target!
Firstly the profits of the companies are spread around the world. Using the famous economies of scale, Canadians will get under 10% of the profits and Alberta will get less than 1% of the profit.

I advocate 30% staying in the province by way of royalty. This is in line with BC and Saskatchewan.

Every thing Alberta does in resources is cost plus. That is the taxpayer pays for all the start up of projects by taking only 1%of the revenue, the oil company keeping the rest.

In the latest infusion of tax dollars into the oil companies, billions will be paid out just to keep crews working. The companies are making a million inside, for drilling a deep well. They don't have to pay anything back, just go onto another hole.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Interesting post. I tried to point this out in a thread a few months ago and got jumped on by defenders of Big Oil. I knew at the time that the arguments they were using were fallacious, but to those who worship at the altar of Big Oil logic and numbers do not matter. The problem in Alberta is that Big Oil essentially purchased the PC Party decades ago. Don't expect any reasonable rates in oil royalties from this government - it just isn't going to happen.

 

[captain morgan]

[FONT=&quot]Province links record land sale to royalties changes

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]He is muddling facts to suit his purpose trying to legitimatize the phony oil royalty sheet published in order to get them elected last time. Lies compounding lies.[/FONT]

These promises were made by a politician... That ought to be a clue that there was little/no force behind the plan.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Liepert scrapped this when it started to come in effect. Now, we are back to the old royalty of less than 16% less the addition of a new Alberta Make Work Program that was announced as being a redraft of the published oil regime but in reality has nothing to do with it at all![/FONT]

That document does not include the floating, marginal rates for the royalty structure as it relates to production levels.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What this new "tweak" does is give away a huge amount of Alberta revenue. The Journal ran a story about 2 weeks ago where a company was drilling to 2700 feet and made a million dollars profit with the subsidy of the new regime. They did not have to produce anything to collect this. Their intention as outlined in the article was to continue drilling wells for profit.[/FONT]

Did you notice what happened with the industry the moment that Stelmach announced the increase in royalties?.. Much of the capital that was earmarked for AB migrated out of the jurisdiction to create employment and pay taxes/royalties elsewhere.

Those resources don't earn you a cent if they remain in the ground.

I'm not fond of Eddie, but he made the right decision for the province's economy.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Nothing will change until you get rid of the Conservatives! Wild Rose is simply another right wing charade being run by Dinning's crew to keep the fire at Stelmach's feet.[/FONT]

Electing socialist alternatives will transform the province into a wasteland like Sask was under socialist rule that subscribed to the belief in entitlement.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Did you notice what happened with the industry the moment that Stelmach announced the increase in royalties?.. Much of the capital that was earmarked for AB migrated out of the jurisdiction to create employment and pay taxes/royalties elsewhere.

Those resources don't earn you a cent if they remain in the ground.

I think you are overlooking a few salient facts.

First, oil and gas is not going to go anywhere. It will still be there when the various petroleum companies come back and are willing to pay a reasonable royalty. So far as sources of oil and gas are concerned the rest of Canada combined has only a fraction of what Alberta has. If oil companies want oil they have to come to Alberta and pay what the government dictates. For decades Alberta has sold off provincial resources at what amounts to fire sale prices. This has resulted in massive profits for the oil companies and has short-changed the citizens of Alberta to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

Second, companies might move out of the province in the short term, but this hardly hurts an economy in which rents and housing costs were shooting through the roof and in which the province trailed badly in many areas of basic infrastructure. The slowdown in the Alberta economy might have hurt some people but overall the decline in the rate of inflation has been positive.

Third, had Stelmach maintained the new royalty rate Alberta would not have had to run a deficit.

Stelmach's capitulation showed a complete lack of political courage when it came to standing up to Big Oil. His masters cracked the whip and he jumped through the hoop.

 

[captain morgan]

I think you are overlooking a few salient facts.

First, oil and gas is not going to go anywhere. It will still be there when the various petroleum companies come back and are willing to pay a reasonable royalty.... For decades Alberta has sold off provincial resources at what amounts to fire sale prices.

While the hydrocarbons will remain, the the limitation of note is technological advancement. The fact is that oil will be in far less demand in the future and at some point, that resource in the ground is useless or an outright liability/cost (ie oilsands)....

As far as a "reasonable" royalty is concerned; is 50% not enough. That is the potential high point... Let me put it another way, (up to 50%) to a silent partner that doesn't share in any risk and contributes zero capital into E&P, refining, delivery or liability... Just upside... That's pretty sweet.

That said, "reasonable" participation has already been passed and we're into the realm of ludicrous.

One more quick thought on "reasonable"... Considering that all businesses in AB are generating profits that employ the use of "our resources", be they land, infrastructure or otherwise, how come everyone (that is in business) in AB isn't charged a royalty on top of taxes?

On the topic that the resources will always be there, that's akin to suggesting that although you have lots of arable land, prime for growing crops, you elect not to exploit that opportunity because the land "will always be there"... The net present value of that resource (and the money it generates) is far greater to the community at large employed today than risking it into the future and running debts to finance your society.

This has resulted in massive profits for the oil companies and has short-changed the citizens of Alberta to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

Where were you when the oil companies were getting their collective a$$es handed to them? The prevailing wisdom at that time was along the lines of "they knew the risks and tough noogies for them" - no mention at all about "our resources" then... You'll note that this was a time when the provincial government operated on deficits and ran up a massive debt.

More importantly, the tens of billions in profits are the result of hundreds of billions in investment let alone the ongoing operating costs.

With the current royalty scheme, those massive corporate profits translate into massive revenues for the province directly through royalties let alone through the corporate taxes, payroll taxes, employee income taxes, fees, licenses, land sales, etc., etc..

These are some of the salient facts that you seem to ignore in your assessment of the situation.

Second, companies might move out of the province in the short term, but this hardly hurts an economy in which rents and housing costs were shooting through the roof.

Hardly hurts the economy?.. How do you figure that eliminating revenues from the single largest contributor (industrial sector) "hardly hurts" the economy?

If you want cheaper rent/housing, move from Edmonton to Bonneville, Vegerville or Blackfalds. They are nice communities... Of course, that might impact your ability to earn a living, but you'll have cheap housing.

Third, had Stelmach maintained the new royalty rate Alberta would not have had to run a deficit.

I can easily make the argument that had Stelmach NOT screwed with the royalty structure, there would have been more robust land sales followed by more E&P, resulting in more fees paid, more local employment (resulting in ) more provincial income taxes paid and more royalties (short and long term) collected... The result, no deficit.

Stelmach's capitulation showed a complete lack of political courage when it came to standing up to Big Oil. His masters cracked the whip and he jumped through the hoop.

You're a real hoot... Do you think that his corporate masters demanded that Eddie increase royalty rates only to have him reverse it?

Considering the actual chain of events on this issue, that is an extraordinarily lame comment.

 

[taxslave]

There is a local company here that will invest your money in oil companies that guarantee they'll go bankrupt. I don't know exactly how it works but the government pays money for the exploration and somehow investors get huge returns.

Flow through shares. Only works if you need a tax loss. Basically it puts you in a position where by loosing a few dollars you save big time on income tax. Common with penny mining stocks.

This has been a common theme in B.C. when the dippers were destroying our forest industry in the 90s. Excessive fees and royalties to pay the socialist machine and high operating costs forced many mills to close eliminating real jobs.
It is important that the people get a royalty on any government asset but one has to be careful that greed does not kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
There are other places on earth that have potential for oil and most of them have far lower operating costs. Just the political climate is safe in Canada and the product can be shipped home in a pipe instead of on boats.

 

[petros]

If AB needs to secure it's future maybe they should try manufacturing that goes beyond the one trick oil pony show and consumer retail.

 

[captain morgan]

If AB needs to secure it's future maybe they should try manufacturing that goes beyond the one trick oil pony show and consumer retail.

The economy has been diversifying for some time.

 

[petros]

The economy has been diversifying for some time.

Obviously not fast enough. Is it into more than just construction and retail?

 

[captain morgan]

Economies aren't built over night... You'll develop an appreciation regarding this as you watch your province develop it's economy.

 

[petros]

Economies aren't built over night... You'll develop an appreciation regarding this as you watch your province develop it's economy.

I have been watching my economy grow and fortunately it's very diverse and dynamic.

Hopefully you'll have the same level of diversity in AB someday.

 

[cyberclark]

Economies aren't built over night... You'll develop an appreciation regarding this as you watch your province develop it's economy.

When Alberta went to a free market electricity deal they killed any chance of expansion of any industry depending on electricity which, is most. Plants manufacturing were closed. That is from cookies to fiberglass rope.

 

[Bar Sinister]

While the hydrocarbons will remain, the the limitation of note is technological advancement. The fact is that oil will be in far less demand in the future and at some point, that resource in the ground is useless or an outright liability/cost (ie oilsands)....

As far as a "reasonable" royalty is concerned; is 50% not enough. That is the potential high point... Let me put it another way, (up to 50%) to a silent partner that doesn't share in any risk and contributes zero capital into E&P, refining, delivery or liability... Just upside... That's pretty sweet.

That said, "reasonable" participation has already been passed and we're into the realm of ludicrous.

One more quick thought on "reasonable"... Considering that all businesses in AB are generating profits that employ the use of "our resources", be they land, infrastructure or otherwise, how come everyone (that is in business) in AB isn't charged a royalty on top of taxes?

On the topic that the resources will always be there, that's akin to suggesting that although you have lots of arable land, prime for growing crops, you elect not to exploit that opportunity because the land "will always be there"... The net present value of that resource (and the money it generates) is far greater to the community at large employed today than risking it into the future and running debts to finance your society.





Where were you when the oil companies were getting their collective a$$es handed to them? The prevailing wisdom at that time was along the lines of "they knew the risks and tough noogies for them" - no mention at all about "our resources" then... You'll note that this was a time when the provincial government operated on deficits and ran up a massive debt.

More importantly, the tens of billions in profits are the result of hundreds of billions in investment let alone the ongoing operating costs.

With the current royalty scheme, those massive corporate profits translate into massive revenues for the province directly through royalties let alone through the corporate taxes, payroll taxes, employee income taxes, fees, licenses, land sales, etc., etc..

These are some of the salient facts that you seem to ignore in your assessment of the situation.





Hardly hurts the economy?.. How do you figure that eliminating revenues from the single largest contributor (industrial sector) "hardly hurts" the economy?

If you want cheaper rent/housing, move from Edmonton to Bonneville, Vegerville or Blackfalds. They are nice communities... Of course, that might impact your ability to earn a living, but you'll have cheap housing.







I can easily make the argument that had Stelmach NOT screwed with the royalty structure, there would have been more robust land sales followed by more E&P, resulting in more fees paid, more local employment (resulting in ) more provincial income taxes paid and more royalties (short and long term) collected... The result, no deficit.




You're a real hoot... Do you think that his corporate masters demanded that Eddie increase royalty rates only to have him reverse it?

Considering the actual chain of events on this issue, that is an extraordinarily lame comment.

First - I have probably lived in this province longer than you have, so I was right here watching the government of Alberta kiss the bums of Big Oil. Or are you really trying to tell me that during the era of low oil prices EXXON, BP, Shell etc. were in any real trouble? Oil companies make money whether oil prices are high or low, but they really make big bucks when oil prices rise and royalty rates remain fixed. For the most part Alberta royalty rates have always trailed the rest of the world.

There is almost zero likelihood of the demand for oil declining in the next few decades. China and India have barely begun to consume, and current society to too dependent on oil as an energy source to break the habit. Also any changeover to alternative energy sources will take decades. Oil will remain in demand for a long time.

As for a silent partner sharing in the risk, I am that silent partner and so are you. The resources of Alberta do not belong to the government they belong to the citizens and it is about time that giant transnational corporations started paying their fair share for those resources instead of just ripping them out of the ground, taking huge profits, and then leaving Albertans with a huge environmental headache.

You may not know this, but Canada and Alberta are one of the few places on the planet that allow large foreign companies to assume exclusive ownership over a key and highly lucrative resource like oil. Most demand at least part ownership of the oil industry and in many areas government ownership is 100%. The fact that any company that wishes to do so can come into Alberta and take over a publicly owned resource is what makes Alberta so attractive to big oil companies. They probably cannot believe that Albertans have not yet woken up to the fact that it is their oil that is being taken at fire sale prices.

As I said. The current slow down hardly hurts the economy. Rents and housing prices have stabilized and basic infrastructure now has a bit of a breathing space to catch up. The fact that the government is running a pretend deficit is unfortunate, but had the government charged a reasonable royalty rate in the first place it would not be scrambling for revenue.

I also stand by my point on the resources always being there. Had past Alberta governments not allowed Big Oil to exploit all of the easily accessible oil at low royalty rates this oil would still be there and bringing in oil revenues that would dwarf what was actually received. Also, equating a non-renewable resource with agriculture makes no sense. Farmers can always plant new crops. New oil cannot be grown.

Also, I don't want cheaper housing prices. I am doing quite well out of the giant increases in real estate, but I am not so selfish as not to understand that for many people, especially low wage earners, these high housing costs and rents are a massive burden. Try tell a someone working for less than $15 an hour to commute from some remote satellite community and you will be told that they simply cannot afford it.

Finally, the reversal shown by Mr. Stelmach was brought about almost entirely by pressure from Big Oil. To give the Premier a little bit of credit, he tried to do the right thing, but Big Oil jerked his chain and sicked the right wing media on him and he ran back to his kennel.

 

[captain morgan]

First - I have probably lived in this province longer than you have, so I was right here watching the government of Alberta kiss the bums of Big Oil.

How long you (or I) have resided in the province is of limited relevance, what is of importance in this issue is having an understanding of the oil industry and the shared dynamic it has with the community at large.

... So, lets analyze your beliefs.. The gvt is "kissing the bums of Big Oil", are they?

Did you ever stop to ask why? I'll help you out on this one; the reason is that the monies generated from having that investment in your community is massive. The indirect, but related, revenues generated from indirect costs like land sales, costs of permits/licensing, mineral rights (vertically zoned - ie. they can sell rights to drill different depths on the same plot of land), etc, etc, etc..

Then there are the direct benefits like the royalties that are collected by the province and the corporate (provincial component) taxes and business taxes that are levied.

Go further down the line and you have the employment factor that pays into things like personal income taxes and payroll taxes, let alone the economic stimulation in the local economies that yield localized benefits.

Or are you really trying to tell me that during the era of low oil prices EXXON, BP, Shell etc. were in any real trouble? Oil companies make money whether oil prices are high or low, but they really make big bucks when oil prices rise and royalty rates remain fixed. For the most part Alberta royalty rates have always trailed the rest of the world.

Yes, I am telling you that... That said, were Exxon and BP close to bankrupt? - No, but that is not the only measure of corporate health is it, that is akin to the coroner confirming death as opposed to the family doc that assess your health while alive.

Further, oil companies don't make money regardless of the price of a bbl of oil; there is a very real cost to exploration, extraction, transportation and refining... To assume that the business is all profit regardless of the economic climate is, well, simplistic and no where near reality.

As for a silent partner sharing in the risk, I am that silent partner and so are you. The resources of Alberta do not belong to the government they belong to the citizens and it is about time that giant transnational corporations started paying their fair share for those resources instead of just ripping them out of the ground, taking huge profits, and then leaving Albertans with a huge environmental headache.

You and I are not sharing any risk in any way whatsoever, you and I are exposed exclusively to the upside and benefit greatly from it. You can stamp your feet all you like about the resources "belonging" to the people of AB, however the gvt of the day is essentially "the people" and "the people" have sold the right to an oil company to exploit that resource on behalf of "the people".

On the fair share issue, well, we saw what happened when that idea was floated. The industry curbed their investment in the province and took their cash elsewhere. That said, the "fair share" you refer too equates to the province getting a bigger share of less production and less money to finance all of teh entitlements that we, as Canadians, demand.

You may not know this, but Canada and Alberta are one of the few places on the planet that allow large foreign companies to assume exclusive ownership over a key and highly lucrative resource like oil.

Not so... Alberta is competitive with all of the Western (style) democracies in terms of the royalties. That said, in analyzing the actual royalty rate, one also has to factor in the tax rates to determine the real competitiveness. many of the high royalty jurisdictions don't have the same high corp taxes, essentially that element is built into the gvt assuming a more aggressive royalty position.

In the end, it's a wash trade. Any production company will analyze the bottom-line projection inclusive of all costs, royalties and taxes. They don't care what governmental department it goes to, they care about the bottom line.

The fact that any company that wishes to do so can come into Alberta and take over a publicly owned resource is what makes Alberta so attractive to big oil companies. They probably cannot believe that Albertans have not yet woken up to the fact that it is their oil that is being taken at fire sale prices.

What part of the gvt receiving (up to) 50% of the actual resource confuses you? How is it possible that a global/transnational corp can possibly "own" 100% of something when the deal is that they have to give up 50%?

You saw how attractive the revised (proposed) royalties rates were when the industry cut spending.

BTW - If the resource is practically being given away - why don't you and some like minded folks - rush out and buy the rights, explore, drill and get production going?... Hell, perhaps you can pay the true value for the land and maybe double the royalty rates in an effort to take a leadership role in the whole "fair share" issue.

How about it?.. Interested?

As I said. The current slow down hardly hurts the economy. Rents and housing prices have stabilized and basic infrastructure now has a bit of a breathing space to catch up.

According to cyberclark, the province is rife with those whose unemployment is/has run out and are poised to lose their homes.

I also stand by my point on the resources always being there. Had past Alberta governments not allowed Big Oil to exploit all of the easily accessible oil at low royalty rates this oil would still be there and bringing in oil revenues that would dwarf what was actually received. Also, equating a non-renewable resource with agriculture makes no sense. Farmers can always plant new crops. New oil cannot be grown.

Sure, they'll be there but what is their value if they stay in the ground? You were the one that mentioned the "pretend deficit", however, if your royalty rates are prohibitive, the investment will occur elsewhere and you'll be running perpetual deficits and assume massive debts to operate your society.

I suppose that once you get far enough into the hole, you can revise the rates to encourage investment and take all that money and pay the decades of debt that were amassed.

As far as farming is concerned, the point I made referred to the attitude that the arable land will always be there as will the demand, so why harvest crops today?.. Wait and wait and save money on fertilizing and real the benefits later.

On a related note, as you pointed out, agricultural crops are "renewable"; you'd think that because of that reality, the gvt would have a real argument for charging a royalty on that sector on top of taxes - afterall, it is "the peoples" land.

Finally, the reversal shown by Mr. Stelmach was brought about almost entirely by pressure from Big Oil. To give the Premier a little bit of credit, he tried to do the right thing, but Big Oil jerked his chain and sicked the right wing media on him and he ran back to his kennel.

If Big Oil are so powerful and control the gvt, how is even remotely possible that they allowed this issue to arise in the first place?

The conspiratorial philosophy that corporations rule the gvt doesn't make too much sense when you ask that very basic question, does it?

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

China car sales 'overtook the US' in 2009

Chinese car sales rose by more than 50% last year

China has said it overtook the United States to become the world's biggest car and van market in 2009. The China Association of Automobile Manufacturers said 13.6 million vehicles were sold within the country last year.
That compares with just over 10 million vehicles in the US, which was previously the world's largest market.
Unlike the US, China's figures include heavy trucks, but they added just 650,000 to the total.
That meant China was still comfortably ahead in terms of private car sales, which were 53% higher than in 2008.
The top three companies in terms of sales are all joint ventures with the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation.
SAIC-GM-Wuling sold just short of one million vehicles, Shanghai Volkswagen sold 728,200 while another SAIC-GM tie-up, Shanghai GM, accounted for 708,000 sales.
Part of the rise was due to moves by the government to stimulate demand. These included cuts in sales tax for small cars.

While the hydrocarbons will remain, the the limitation of note is technological advancement. The fact is that oil will be in far less demand in the future and at some point, that resource in the ground is useless or an outright liability/cost (ie oilsands)....

What a bunch of gobbledygook.

There'll be be less demand for energy in the future? Where? The entire world is industrializing at a rapid clip and buying cars. Only a Big Oil lackey could say such a silly thing in order to pay less tax and increase profits now. Yet there are fools out there who will believe you.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Well, Captain it is always entertaining to discuss matters with an apologist for Big Oil. You do realize that the oil industry has a habit of distorting the facts whenever it suits them and that it spends billions on public relations telling everyone how wonderful it is? I see nothing in any of your arguments that has not been fed the general public before.

Since you are now beginning to repeat some of your earlier arguments I don't think there is much point in further debate. Support Big Oil if you must, just as long as you know that the industry has a history of grossly distorting the truth and and using every weapon at its disposal both legal and illegal. Sadly, the greatest ally the oil industry has is apologists like yourself who choose to believe everything the industry tells them. My experience with the industry is that when a spokesperson for the industry opens his mouth get ready for a lie, and when they put something in print get ready for a bigger lie. Perhaps in your next post you could spend some time defending the oil industry's environmental record.

 

[captain morgan]

Well, Captain it is always entertaining to discuss matters with an apologist for Big Oil. You do realize that the oil industry has a habit of distorting the facts whenever it suits them and that it spends billions on public relations telling everyone how wonderful it is? I see nothing in any of your arguments that has not been fed the general public before.

I'd really appreciate if you'd outline the facts that are being distorted... So far, we've kicked the ball around on the economic health of these corps, the royalty structure in Ab as well as the relative royalty structures elsewhere.

Since you are now beginning to repeat some of your earlier arguments I don't think there is much point in further debate. Support Big Oil if you must, just as long as you know that the industry has a history of grossly distorting the truth and and using every weapon at its disposal both legal and illegal.

I am forced to repeat these arguments as you elect to not tackle them head-on. You have decided to cling to a number of intangible and emotionally based arguments. My revisitation of "earlier arguments" is simply a manifestation of my interest in bringing specific issues to a head and (hopefully) getting an answer(s).

Sadly, the greatest ally the oil industry has is apologists like yourself who choose to believe everything the industry tells them. My experience with the industry is that when a spokesperson for the industry opens his mouth get ready for a lie, and when they put something in print get ready for a bigger lie.

Other than the very public communications of BP in the Gulf, I am at a loss to come up with any real and compelling examples of the fabrications, distortions and misleading public relations (as it relates to the AB situation).

Perhaps in your next post you could spend some time defending the oil industry's environmental record.

http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/5923.pdf

http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6818.pdf

http://www.ercb.ca/docs/programs/Lmp/HistoryOrphanFund.pdf

Security for land reclamation performance – Alberta Environment

What a bunch of gobbledygook.

There'll be be less demand for energy in the future? Where? The entire world is industrializing at a rapid clip and buying cars. Only a Big Oil lackey could say such a silly thing in order to pay less tax and increase profits now. Yet there are fools out there who will believe you.

I guess that I wasn't clear enough for you.. Considering that this discussion is exclusively about oil/gas, I naturally assumed that you'd have the capacity to understand that the comment on "energy" was an actual reference to sources of energy derived from hydrocarbons.

However, if you are making the argument that the globe will be utterly dependent on hydrocarbons then you're making my argument for me.

On the tax/profit issue, perhaps the best recommendation for you is to encourage you and your ilk to demand that government institute prohibitive royalty structures and tax the E&P companies out of existence in this nation... Sure, you will still personally rely on oil as a fuel source and will have to pay through the ass for it, you'll still pollute, there will still be spills and contamination; but you can rest easy at night knowing that you're pleasing your eco-fascist masters that dictate to you and the rest of the eco-fringe what to think, when to think it and how you must alter your reality to accommodate their agenda.

Say hi to Dear Leader for me and enjoy the kool-aid

 

[petros]

I really get a kick out of the "blame China" routine.