Yeah, I suppose that they don't deserve to get into the 21st century.. That's a privilege reserved only for us.
Alberta Oil Royalty about theatre not income.
- Thread starter cyberclark
- Start date
in many areas it is us who are lagging behind. More people take a train in one day in China than live in Canada.
It is nice to note that having run out of intelligent commentary you resort to name-calling and gross exaggeration of the facts and my position. I have no idea what the inane Kool-Aid reference meant unless you were referring to Jonestown in which case it shows how desperate you are. Perhaps you could say hello to your leaders for me - you know, the oil company executives who must me enjoying your display of naivete.
Alright. Here is one distortion of the truth that the oil industry has made continuously over the years and that is that if Alberta raises its royalties to the same rates as nations like Norway it will leave the province. One wonders where it would go and why it hasn't left Norway. The point is if there is a nickle to be made the oil industry will stay right where is is, especially as it gets such a sweet deal from the Alberta government.
You might also want to look at this. I find it a bit revealing. http://www.iraqdividend.com/World_Oil_Tax_Policies.pdf
So far as taxing oil companies out of existence I find it very difficult to believe considering that Alberta's rates trail so many other oil producing regions.
The problem is, CM that you seem content to believe what professional propagandists for the oil industry say. I don't. But perhaps you could give me a list of the foreign oil companies in Alberta that are in danger of losing money, or provide me with a set of stats showing that Big Oil is overtaxed in Alberta
You may also want to look at this article comparing the oil industry in Alberta and Venezuela, especially the section where it describes the one percent royalty paid by oil sands producers. Venezuela's and Canada's Very Different Approaches to Oil | venezuelanalysis.com
I also found this article from an investment adviser interesting especially where it talks about the lack of risk involved in the oil sands. Mega Profits from the Oil Reserve 8 Times Bigger Than Saudi Arabia’s - Contrarian Stock Market Investing News - Featuring Bargain Stocks
I give in kind Bar Sinister, no more and no less.
"The facts"... I'm still waiting to see your facts. Currently, you've offered personal opinion that is engineered to represent "your" extreme position while simultaneously ignoring many other elements that submarine your opinion.
You are correct about the kool-aid reference.
Seriously?
Did you not notice how the industry reacted to the mere threat of royalty increases?
Let me help you out on this one... Land sales dropped dramatically and immediately. In case you aren't aware, land sales are an absolute precursor to any exploration development and production... No land sales means no future activity.
That said, I guess that there was no distortion, was there?
(N.B.: In the event that your belief is that the companies would shut-in all their wells, production or oil sands operations and physically leave - these people aren't stupid; they will finish their existing plays but refrain from reinvestment in that jurisdiction)
Extremely revealing.... Canada (Alberta), Argentine and Norway are magically grouped with nations that have no meaningful production (ie. in the same ball park as the 3 aforementioned) or are ruled by gvts that have nothing in common (no where near in fact) with Canada, Argentina or Norway.
On that note, I had specifically mentioned that the oil companies assess the bottom-line economics that includes all costs. The oil plays in Norway are all (mostly) offshore. All the costs associated with exploiting that resource are magnified significantly. That said, the Norwegian gvt had to develop a royalty structure that would not only attract companies to develop the resource, but they also had to compete with investment/resource plays globally.
First, that was my suggestion to you.
I hope that your belief that AB's rates trail all others is based on the royalty chart you referred to earlier.
I'd suggest that you compare rates in North American jurisdictions (separated by offshore & conventional) that represent comparable production or estimated reserves first (BC, Sask, CA, LA, OK, TX, etc). Pending that review, compare the applicable (combined) tax rates and lastly gvt stability.
I'm still waiting to review the myriad of propoganda that you refer to... So far, all you can point to is the royalty example, which I believe I have offered a very reasonable rebuttal.
So, let's hear it.... All the propoganda message that are being plied by the industry.
Interesting article... I was especially interested in the commentary that mentioned (ever so fleeting) that the IMF was called in to provide emergency financing to the nation and restructure it's programs.
As a general statement, the IMF doesn't (generally) intervene for those nations that Utopic and of strong economic health... That is what I found conspicuously lacking in the article; AB does not require the services of the IMF.
I also noticed that the article also ignored the international court case going on between the Chavez gvt and ConnocoPhillips (I believe). Chavez arbitrarily "nationalized" some of CP's assets. Further, the international investment has all but dried up adn teh big Orinoco play is standing idle
Interesting article
You are wasting your time on Captain Morgan. He is here to twist tails and disrupt any reasonable conversation. At election time there is a crew of these guys on the CBC the soul purpose being to push a reasonable comment off the screen with BS like Morgan is putting out.
I suspect he is very new at this and doesn't know how much information has gone before. To reiterate; he is not worth the time.
I suspect he is very new at this and doesn't know how much information has gone before. To reiterate; he is not worth the time.
Sounds to me like you're the chief kool-aid mixer cyberclark.
Try and provide something other than emotionally charged rhetoric. I have yet to get any kind of factually based information that supports the contentions forwarded by you or Bar Sinister... To date, your position is the only propaganda being bandied about.
Try and provide something other than emotionally charged rhetoric. I have yet to get any kind of factually based information that supports the contentions forwarded by you or Bar Sinister... To date, your position is the only propaganda being bandied about.
I'm not going to waste any more time on your BS. There are enough rippers trying to protect their fat take from this province. I can only hope for another, not conservative Government.
It is time for you to come up with something that can refute the chart I presented comparing international tax rates on oil. That has been the main point of my comments all along; that Alberta and Canada do not get as much revenue from Big Oil as they could. In spite of your efforts to obscure the issue you have yet to come up with anything. In your previous post you challenged me to come up with some evidence. I did that and in return challenged you to come up with evidence that refuted mine. I am still waiting.
And try to be a bit less facetious in your postings. Insults and what you think passes for wit do nothing to strengthen your arguments. In fact they show that you have run out of intelligent things to say. But it is usually that way with the defenders of Big Oil. If there are no facts to support your position then try personal attacks. It works for Rush Limbaugh why shouldn't it work for you?
I am beginning to think you may be correct. I was hoping for intelligent discussion, but more and more I am running into thinly veiled insults where CM is concerned. It appears that having run out of sound arguments he is resorting the the usual tactic of those defending a weak position.
... Remember this comment Bar? It's from post # 15
The "international royalty rates" chart excluded any comparable reference points... Sure, you included giant oil producing nations like Trinidad/Tobago, but in reality, the only 2 functional references were Norway and Argentine (N.B. - Russian satellites are not applicable as the stability of gvt is highly in question and the business culture is different enough that they are considered high risk plays in the eyes of the majors that provide the real investment dollars).
... So, getting back to your request to provide you the information, I'd suggest that this is entirely your responsibility particularly as you have made such broad and pointed statements about AB's royalty structure within the global industry.
Lastly, Canada/AB does not relinquish "exclusive ownership over a key and highly lucrative resource like oil", quite the opposite in fact. An oil company is granted the right to exploit the resource on behalf of the province, further, in the event that the company doesn't comply with provincial regulations - that right (and property) can be retracted by the government and lastly, the opportunity to extract/exploit is purchased and supplemented by royalties.
You have attempted to oversimplify this issue with a specific bent towards supporting your position. It is simply incorrect.
I've come up with plenty to date. Recently, you asked for me to defend their environmental record and I did..... Not surprisingly, you've decided to abandon that position and focus elsewhere... Surprise, surprise...
That said, the suggestion that I offered nothing is a very flat statement all
considering.
As far as "making as much as we could", the best way to do that is to put up the cash, purchase and implement the technology, assume all the risk and do it yourself... That's the way to "make as much as we could"... Sounds familiar, doesn't it? I mentioned it before, but I have yet to hear if you have an appetite for that.
Perhaps the 2 of you should make an effort to provide some real answers founded in reality and refrain from the dramatic, theatrical and untestable rhetoric that you both are dependent on.
I'll wager that you don't have any interest in this and will withdraw from any challenges under the current guise of branding any/all that disagree with your position as Big Oil supporters.
Quoting Capital Morgan
id 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.
This had to receive a comment:
The price of oil tanked; oil production was down not just in Alberta but around the world! There was new shallow well action in the Shale in Saskatchewan. Drilling migrated there and to the New shale in BC.
When this was happening, Alberta's royalty was at 16% Canadian dollars and both the other provinces was based at 30% US dollars.
I'm telling you the royalty regime had absolutely nothing to do with the downturn in oil drilling., And, as to the frequency of holes directional drilling now takes place over straight line drilling. That means one hole drilled now replaced 5 or 10 holes drilled in straight line. Consequently a number count of holes drilled means nothing.
To make Alberta appear busy came the deal I talked of in the original post; still a new subsidy that allows drilling deep wells to pay sufficiently that oil does not have to be produced from them. According the Calgary Herald a million dollars profit for the drilling company and no product.
As for the lack of links you seem hung up on go to Alberta--The Details and in the top right corner you will find a search bar. Search oil royalty and you will find all the links and information you want. Check the archives in your search and you will find a warning at the last election that the numbers just posted held nothing in them for Albertans.
id 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.
This had to receive a comment:
The price of oil tanked; oil production was down not just in Alberta but around the world! There was new shallow well action in the Shale in Saskatchewan. Drilling migrated there and to the New shale in BC.
When this was happening, Alberta's royalty was at 16% Canadian dollars and both the other provinces was based at 30% US dollars.
I'm telling you the royalty regime had absolutely nothing to do with the downturn in oil drilling., And, as to the frequency of holes directional drilling now takes place over straight line drilling. That means one hole drilled now replaced 5 or 10 holes drilled in straight line. Consequently a number count of holes drilled means nothing.
To make Alberta appear busy came the deal I talked of in the original post; still a new subsidy that allows drilling deep wells to pay sufficiently that oil does not have to be produced from them. According the Calgary Herald a million dollars profit for the drilling company and no product.
As for the lack of links you seem hung up on go to Alberta--The Details and in the top right corner you will find a search bar. Search oil royalty and you will find all the links and information you want. Check the archives in your search and you will find a warning at the last election that the numbers just posted held nothing in them for Albertans.
Well, CN, perhaps your comments might make more sense if you just tell me what oil company you work for; at least then I will understand your motive in defending Big Oil.
And no, I am not going to provide any more evidence. Not when you have been unable to refute the evidence I have already supplied. My contention is that large transnational oil companies in Alberta have been are are getting an easy ride. I have repeated this point several times and provided links to information supporting that claim. There is nothing in any of your posts to refute that. Unless you can come up with something new please stop wasting my time.
And no, I am not going to provide any more evidence. Not when you have been unable to refute the evidence I have already supplied. My contention is that large transnational oil companies in Alberta have been are are getting an easy ride. I have repeated this point several times and provided links to information supporting that claim. There is nothing in any of your posts to refute that. Unless you can come up with something new please stop wasting my time.
So, what are you saying here? Is the message that world oil prices affected everyone except for BC and Sask? Those opportunities in BC and Sask have been on the radar for a long time, they are nothing new and the commodity price for those resources on the global market is identical to that of AB, Middle Eastern, US or North Sea products.
So, with that framework in mind, explain 2 things; the dramatic decrease in land sales in AB in relation to the the concurrent increase in interest in BC/Sask and secondly, the resurgence in AB land sales/activity that coincided with Stelmach's retraction of the higher royalties.
I have absolutely no clue what this means.
All of the royalty equations I am familiar with incorporate rates that are pinned against the volume of production and/or the price of the commodity (in general).
Please explain what you've posted and how it applies.
The industry is telling you otherwise.
That has been the case for years cyberclark, it's not a technological development that was introduced at the same time as the increased royalties in AB.
Show me where the actual details are that stipulate the AB government will put up cash in advance to drill for oil... Give me a phone number or a web link to this money.
I don't expect any real response on this from you as it doesn't exist (in the way you believe).... I've explained this to you previously cyberclark... This benefit exists as a tax deduction - that is, you can write off those costs as exploration expenses against revenues generated by the company's operations.
What that means cyberclark is that you reduce your taxable income... You do not receive a hard cheque from the AB gvt for that amount.
BTW - this deduction is not a new program.
I work for many companies Bar.
Don't think of this as a defence of the oil industry, think of this as an effort to promote accuracy in this issue and an effort to diffuse the emotionally charged exaggerations that are being forwarded.
What have you provided?... Are you speaking of the comparison of AB royalty rates with global giants in the industry like Trinidad/Tobago?
It is evident that you understand that if you were to offer comparable rates in jurisdictions that are comparable in terms of government, taxes and production volumes, your position and argument would be deflated very quickly.
You likely spent more time sourcing a skewed document that provided veiled evidence to support your ideals.... If it is too much effort for you to type in "royalty rate Texas" (or Sask, BC, UK, LA, OK, CA, etc), then don't expect me to waste my time doing so.
Either you don't know any better or you are being deliberately misleading to suit your own ends.
Would you please re-post these links that detail how the large multi-nationals are being given a free ride (or possibly refer to the post #). I have previously reviewed the info within your posts and have no recollection of that info.
On the topic of your "contention", my position is that the entire picture must be taken into account when performing any analysis of these companies. The royalty represents one important element, however, things like corporate/personal tax rates also contribute directly to this equation... Provincial/Satae and federal gvts realize this and will play teh game of reducing royalties and offsetting that by raising copr tax rates to carve out that difference.
Like I mentioned before, the industry analyzes their position from a bottom-line perspective regardless of how a gvt dresses-up teh associated costs.
I am saddened by the fact that you cannot read graphs. But just to help you out I will list a few of the countries in the graph I provided and I will link the graph again.
I believe that Norway, Russia, Venezuela, and Indonesia amount to a bit more than Trinidad and Tobago. And I am not interested in comparing other areas of the world that have sold out to the interests of Big Oil, such as the various oil producing states in the US. They were the first to sell their resources short. It is unfortunate that Alberta has chosen to follow in their footsteps. And of course, I am not listing the states that own 100% of their own oil resources, something that Canada would have been wise to consider instead of letting foreign transnationals do it for us.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the one percent tax paid by oil sands developers?
http://www.iraqdividend.com/World_Oil_Tax_Policies.pdf
I read the graphs Bar and I've commented a couple of times regarding why the nations that AB is being compared to are inappropriate. Seeing how you are remiss to research the area yourself, I've provided the links such that you can make the assessment yourself.
The links include: First, the provincial/state royalty structure and secondly, a reference point to the corporate tax rates.
Sask:
Royalty and Production Tax Rate Formula Factors, Graphs and Royalty Rate Calculator - Energy and Resources - Government of Saskatchewan
Corporate Income Tax - Finance - Government of Saskatchewan
BC:
Finance - Oil and Gas Royalties and Freehold Production Tax
British Columbia - Provincial corporation tax
North America Major Producers: Incl US offshore and 6 States)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07676r.pdf
This ought to be a start, but you can do the research on tax rates and maybe generate an idea regarding the jurisdictional competitiveness in those states/provinces that actually are comparable to AB.
*N.B. - Factor in applicable individual sales taxes or unique State/Prov taxes.
Other than Norway (which is still a stretch to compare to AB and need to reduce the royalty in order to offset the much greater capital costs to E&P compared to conventional plays; ie AB), the remainder are all without merit. Russia is notorious for breaching deals and act like tin-pot dictatorships (that have bankrupt some companies - see Fracmaster) and Venezuela "nationalized" their industry that has resulted in capital and locally expertise fleeing the jurisdiction (look into the Orinoco play and how it is essentially stalled)... What's the big deal you say? - Well, it has to do with the stability and predictability of gvt and the capacity for these companies to actually do business.
Conspiracy theory.. Your unilateral declaration is not proof-positive of anything other than a need to skew the playing field in order to justify your position.
I see that Iran assumes a 90%+ royalty rate and what a wonderful that place is to live... Is this the style of society that you equate with Canada?
But then again, as I suggested earlier in this thread, why don't you and some friends get together, sell/mortgage your homes, empty the ole savings account(s) and do all the E&P. You can take all the risk and later give up 95% of teh find to gvt... Sure, it might take 60 or 70 years to get your cash back, but you'll be living the royalty dream.
I assume that it is an environmental based cost... I have no problem with this.
Captain Morgan, so called has put up the typical Conservative challenge to the quote. In most cases he chooses to detail a subject to oblivion while stating if a person does not agree with him, they don't understand.
With billions of dollars at stake in a successful royalty challenge they are circling the wagons.
Some examples:
Capt Morgan (CM here after)
[FONT="]So, with that framework in mind, explain 2 things; the dramatic decrease in land sales in AB in relation to the the concurrent increase in interest in BC/Sask and secondly, the resurgence in AB land sales/activity that coincided with Stelmach's retraction of the higher royalties.
The price of oil tanked rigs were not working in Canada nor around the world. To bid or not to bid on an impossible royalty scale was a no brainier. Sit this one out.
The Sask and BC properties had to do with directional drilling application in the newly discovered shale deposits there; none of which are in Alberta.
Remember as you read through this stuff; The Alberta Conservatives are not in the business of increasing royalty!
I continue:
[/FONT] [FONT="]The "world prices" change between crude prices in NW and Texas sweet crude. The latter is generally lower than the former. When this BS royalty paper came out , along with changing Alberta's take from US dollars to Canadian Dollars (a loss of 18% at that time) they changed our benchmark from NY Sweet Crude to Texas Sweet Crude a further loss at that time of 2%.
So at that space in time the Government's sham of increased oil royalty was actually a 20% reduction in royalties.
When they threw away the chaff in this more recent announcement published again here, they kept all the reductions in that same document in place.
The whole thing was nothing less than a well planned charade!
CM ;[/FONT] [FONT="]The industry is telling you otherwise.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Industry has been lying hand in hand with the Conservatives for years. It seems to work for them so they keep it up! One prime example of orchestrated performance between oil and the Conservatives is the National Energy Program.
The NEP was designed to create more Canadian Ownership in the resource sector. Laugheed agreed to it and signed it.
Then the economy changed similar to what it has done now.
Oil prices tanked to an equivalent of 10.00 per barrel US when considered in today's values.
Interest rates were allowed to go up beyond 25% while inflation was running at a strong 20%.
Many Albertan's had vested their homes into business to get into oil support.
As is the case now, unable to pay their high interest loans to ride it out a great many went bankrupt. And, it really hurt.
The Conservatives and the oil companies teamed up in their PR again and went province wide saying the cause of the demise of the oil industry was the National energy program! They sold this time and again in papers radio and to anyone who would listen. One huge lie that was the basis of hate Liberals in the province.
As I said; they haven't stopped lying and with multi billions of dollars at stake there is not anything they will not stop at.
---
Alberta's royalty was a 19% US dollars before the "new regime" was put in place (the phony document that reduced the royalty while claiming to increase it.)
At this time the play field royalty take was: BC 30% US$ Saskatchewan 30% US$ and Alberta 19% now, less the exchange difference and the price of crude difference in markets. I chose a mean 16% which I think is very high.
The AG Fred Dunn bounced them saying they had not came close to their projected royalty take of 19%.
As I outlined before, with the considerations of loosing the exchange which at that time was 18%, Albertan's are paying the oil companies to take the resource from the province.
I am saying also shut down the dam industry if need be until we can get a better deal!
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
With billions of dollars at stake in a successful royalty challenge they are circling the wagons.
Some examples:
Capt Morgan (CM here after)
[FONT="]So, with that framework in mind, explain 2 things; the dramatic decrease in land sales in AB in relation to the the concurrent increase in interest in BC/Sask and secondly, the resurgence in AB land sales/activity that coincided with Stelmach's retraction of the higher royalties.
The price of oil tanked rigs were not working in Canada nor around the world. To bid or not to bid on an impossible royalty scale was a no brainier. Sit this one out.
The Sask and BC properties had to do with directional drilling application in the newly discovered shale deposits there; none of which are in Alberta.
Remember as you read through this stuff; The Alberta Conservatives are not in the business of increasing royalty!
I continue:
[/FONT] [FONT="]The "world prices" change between crude prices in NW and Texas sweet crude. The latter is generally lower than the former. When this BS royalty paper came out , along with changing Alberta's take from US dollars to Canadian Dollars (a loss of 18% at that time) they changed our benchmark from NY Sweet Crude to Texas Sweet Crude a further loss at that time of 2%.
So at that space in time the Government's sham of increased oil royalty was actually a 20% reduction in royalties.
When they threw away the chaff in this more recent announcement published again here, they kept all the reductions in that same document in place.
The whole thing was nothing less than a well planned charade!
CM ;[/FONT] [FONT="]The industry is telling you otherwise.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Industry has been lying hand in hand with the Conservatives for years. It seems to work for them so they keep it up! One prime example of orchestrated performance between oil and the Conservatives is the National Energy Program.
The NEP was designed to create more Canadian Ownership in the resource sector. Laugheed agreed to it and signed it.
Then the economy changed similar to what it has done now.
Oil prices tanked to an equivalent of 10.00 per barrel US when considered in today's values.
Interest rates were allowed to go up beyond 25% while inflation was running at a strong 20%.
Many Albertan's had vested their homes into business to get into oil support.
As is the case now, unable to pay their high interest loans to ride it out a great many went bankrupt. And, it really hurt.
The Conservatives and the oil companies teamed up in their PR again and went province wide saying the cause of the demise of the oil industry was the National energy program! They sold this time and again in papers radio and to anyone who would listen. One huge lie that was the basis of hate Liberals in the province.
As I said; they haven't stopped lying and with multi billions of dollars at stake there is not anything they will not stop at.
---
Alberta's royalty was a 19% US dollars before the "new regime" was put in place (the phony document that reduced the royalty while claiming to increase it.)
At this time the play field royalty take was: BC 30% US$ Saskatchewan 30% US$ and Alberta 19% now, less the exchange difference and the price of crude difference in markets. I chose a mean 16% which I think is very high.
The AG Fred Dunn bounced them saying they had not came close to their projected royalty take of 19%.
As I outlined before, with the considerations of loosing the exchange which at that time was 18%, Albertan's are paying the oil companies to take the resource from the province.
I am saying also shut down the dam industry if need be until we can get a better deal!
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
CM, I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. Nothing you have shown me in any way convinces me that Big Oil in Canada is paying its fair share of taxes. In fact your posts are becoming less and less rational and based more an more upon snide comments that contribute nothing to the topic.
It is worth remembering that if oil companies do not pay their fair share of taxes then everyone else must end up paying tax for them.
It is worth remembering that if oil companies do not pay their fair share of taxes then everyone else must end up paying tax for them.
Perhaps.
I'm a little curious Bar, did you review the examples of the royalty structures in other North American jurisdictions?.. The overview of the American States was particularly telling.
However, maybe I need to ask you this question in another way: What is "our fair share". I mean in real numbers via royalties and taxes.
Interested in answering that question?
I've gone through my last few posts to you and see absolutely no evidence that supports this comment. In fact, it appears the more pointed questions that I ask of you and the supply of hard documents that contradict your suggestions results in you throwing anomalous complaints at me.
The rationality I am providing has specifically targeted your contention(s) that AB pays "among the lowest royalty rates on the globe"... I have questioned your logic on 2 issues, the first being that you deliberately selectively in whom you wish to compare against {theocracies, massively corrupt gvts, jurisdictions that are tax havens (ie little/no corp taxes) or nations that have essentially no oil sector}. Excepting Norway and Argentina, the remainder are the loaded dice that you are basing your statement as global representation.
The second issue relates to the tax structures of those nations and how lower royalty rates are offset by higher corp and income taxes.
You have ducked these questions on many occassions now by virtue of supply an intangible, unmeasureable answer like "we ain't getting our fair share" and it is highly disappointing that you now rely on an exclusive reliance that I am being snide or insulting. Sorry Bar, but that is not the case unless your definition of snide/insulting is founded on anyone that disagrees with you.
... Or, the oil comapnies are paying more (on a relative basis) compared to other resource sectors and therefore financing (unfairly) the entitlements of everyone else.
All said, I have provided you with links and info and it is up to you to decide to review that info and make an argument or not.
The oil royalty in the US is pretty much set by the Rupublicans and as you are aware Obama is tasking to increase them.
Curious, the Nevada royalty was at 19% the same as Alberta was and, the people there figure they are getting skinned too and want an increase.
Alberta has not increased its spending since 1986. All the funds that should have gone to annual increases went instead to the oil royalty reduction.
There is no way in hell you will ever convince me Alberta is not the lowest royalty in the world and that Albertans are subsidizing oil; not the other way around.
Your arguments are shallow yet, frustrating and elusive. I would hope following readers can see through them.
Curious, the Nevada royalty was at 19% the same as Alberta was and, the people there figure they are getting skinned too and want an increase.
Alberta has not increased its spending since 1986. All the funds that should have gone to annual increases went instead to the oil royalty reduction.
There is no way in hell you will ever convince me Alberta is not the lowest royalty in the world and that Albertans are subsidizing oil; not the other way around.
Your arguments are shallow yet, frustrating and elusive. I would hope following readers can see through them.
Gotcha... So, it's only the Conservatives and the Republicans that don't subscribe to generating a fair return, is it?
So you're saying that AB is charging only 19%, is that right?
Nonsense..... Prove it?
Like I've tried with Bar Sinister. Couple the royalty structure with the overall existing tax regime and then tell me all about not getting "fair share".. What is 'a fair share" cyberclark? To date, neither you nor Bar Sinister is capable of answering that very basic question.. Sure, I've given you some things to think about, but as they are inconvenient and damaging to your intangible argument, they are summarily dismissed.
Guys like you absolutely rely on analyzing this issue in a vacuum selecting only very specific information that is no where near representative of the overall contributions made by oil/gas companies... You see a number and analyze it in isolation assuming that this solitary number is representative of all factors.
Funny comment coming from a guy that has yet to even define a tangible position on the issue, other than repeating the mantra of "my fair share", something that you can't even define.
So, please spare me the rhetoric and refrain from commenting or providing your skewed opinion on anyone else's position until you can actually define a position yourself.