Alberta is Canada's Sausagefest

[waldo]

That you can't understand something simple such as the price of doing business in Alberta is made harder by environmental programs and higher wages than other countries doesn't surprise me one bit. I mean it's a pretty simple thing to understand but hey that doesn't mean you can.

strawman!!! Here I thought we were talking about royalty fee management and the Alberta government kowtowing to BigOil.

[waldo]

My weak arguments. Hmmm.

1. Canada's early immigration policy was designed to direct European farmers, mostly from the Ukraine and other slavic states as well as Germany to the Western provinces. Proved that.

bully - it's a given... it was acknowledged - no one disputes it. Don't let that sully your chest pounding, hey?

2. That the Western provinces quickly gained a large amount on non-English immigrants and that this irked English speaking Ontario right from the beginning. Check. Also proved this.

proved? In your head... still waiting on the following:

in any case, the reality you speak of is only the one playing out in your ultra-sensitive head. Still waiting for you to substantiate the following... now colour/bold-highlighted for the ignoring few (that would be you):

Maybe but the history of this country speaks to a

deeper seeded hate

. It starts a century ago when new immigrants were courted to this country and then

sent to different areas depending on their nationality or creed

. If you were English or Scottish you were

allowed

to move to Ontario, usually because you could point to a relative there or because it was thought that you (or more likely your children) would do well in English speaking university. If you were one of the

mistrusted slavs

, Polish, Ukranian, German etc.

your only choice,

generally

, came down to being offered a free plot of land (if you did the work to clear and farm it) in one of the Western provinces.

[Claudius]

strawman!!! Here I thought we were talking about royalty fee management and the Alberta government kowtowing to BigOil.

More childish babble. Since you refuse to read I'll just copy and paste it until you get it:

For the 4rd time: The argument I said was a strawman was the accusation that I'm blaming someone else. You know this but this is the 3rd time you've attempted to claim I was calling something else a strawman argument. There's that childish dishonesty of yours again.

And as to the royalties:

That's the reason the royalty rates are low. That you don't accept it and keep on yammering is predictable. Your reply here is really nothing. That you can't understand something simple such as the price of doing business in Alberta is made harder by environmental programs and higher wages than other countries doesn't surprise me one bit. I mean it's a pretty simple thing to understand but hey that doesn't mean you can.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Claudius

[Claudius]

2. That the Western provinces quickly gained a large amount on non-English immigrants and that this irked English speaking Ontario right from the beginning. Check. Also proved this.

proved? In your head... still waiting on the following:

Nope. I've proved it for anyone who can read, which I suppose discounts you. Here it is again for you from the link you supposedly already read, that is if you can be trusted to debate honestly:

Sifton’s definition of a desirable immigrant was not shared by all Canadians. As a result of his policy, there was a backlash from people who saw large numbers of immigrants coming from non-British countries. Canada was a member of the British Empire and English Canadians expected the country to keep its links with their motherland strong by bringing in others with common roots.

http://www.british-immigrants-in-montreal.com/clifford_sifton_policy.html

....which is exactly what I said.

How many more times do I need to post that for you before you read it and actually understand what it says?

Edited June 1, 2012 by Claudius

[waldo]

Tell us some more Waldo about how 4% population growth is more than 10% or maybe show me where I assert Albertas infrastructure is someone elses fault. I'm sure you can do that since you accuse me of it non-stop.

hey now! Hey now, you started with 5%... how did 5% become 4%?

wow! You finally... finally... accept the blame for infrastructure mismanagement lies with the Alberta government. It's unfortunate you couldn't see fit to acknowledge that from the onset, particularly when you're so busy with hate projection. Why... some might misread your intentions/agenda and hatin - why be hatin so much?

[Claudius]

still waiting on the following:

Maybe but the history of this country speaks to a deeper seeded hate. It starts a century ago when new immigrants were courted to this country and then sent to different areas depending on their nationality or creed. If you were English or Scottish you were allowed to move to Ontario, usually because you could point to a relative there or because it was thought that you (or more likely your children) would do well in English speaking university. If you were one of the mistrusted slavs, Polish, Ukranian, German etc. your only choice, generally, came down to being offered a free plot of land (if you did the work to clear and farm it) in one of the Western provinces.

I've already provided plenty of reading material to prove this. That you refuse to read or understand it is meaningless to me.

[waldo]

And as to the royalties:

That's the reason the royalty rates are low. That you don't accept it and keep on yammering is predictable. Your reply here is really nothing. That you can't understand something simple such as the price of doing business in Alberta is made harder by environmental programs and higher wages than other countries doesn't surprise me one bit. I mean it's a pretty simple thing to understand but hey that doesn't mean you can.

BS! Why is the Alberta government so afraid to raise the royalty fee structure? Just how much record billion dollar profiteering does BigOil need to extract... anyway?

[Claudius]

hey now! Hey now, you started with 5%... how did 5% become 4%?

Again your reading comprehension skills are as lacking as hour honesty.

It was ALWAYS less than 5%, I just decided to round it off. Notice again you dance around with this meaningless tidbit instead of addressing the point you know you are wrong about:

That Ontario's growth amounts to 2.5 times the amount of people Alberta has grown by doesn't mean anything when you decide to also factor in the fact that Ontario is 5.4 times Albertas population.

Let's see if you ever grow enough guts to address this instead of just babbling and dancing around it.

[Claudius]

BS! Why is the Alberta government so afraid to raise the royalty fee structure?

I just finished telling you why the royalty rates are low. You refuse to address this all you can do is scream "BS!" and ask me why again. You screaming BS doesn't mean anything. Do you or do you not understand the principle of remaining competitive? Yes? Then you understand why Alberta royalty rates will be lower than countries who do not charge escrows for environmental clean up or whose wages are astronomically lower than Alebrta's. Do I need to draw you a picture to help you understand this?

This is very easy to understand and screaming "BS" and then throwing out the non-word BigOil doesn't change it.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Claudius

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Are you really this dumb? I kinda doubt it. I think you're jsut faking this to keep on arguing a point you know you've lost. Your analogy has nothing to do with the reality here.

I'll tell you what:

You collect 5% taxes from Ontarios 12 million people and I'll collect 5% taxes from Alberta's 2.5 million.

Which one of us will have more to spend on infrastructure Einstein?

Seriously. They don't teach math in Ontario? They don't teach you about relative ratios, how to use them and why they're important?

Hilarious. 10% population growth is more than 4% population growth no matter how many times you try to rearrange the numbers to make this look different. I can't believe you guys have spent 3 pages arguing the inarguable. Go back to school.

Alberta, because they are pumping money out of the ground.

[waldo]

For the 4rd time: The argument I said was a strawman was

who cares what you said - my strawman declaration was in regards to the strawman points you just dropped when discussing Alberta government infrastructure mismanagement; i.e., environmental programs & higher wages. Strawman!

[Claudius]

wow! You finally... finally... accept the blame for infrastructure mismanagement lies with the Alberta government.

More lying from the guy who can only lie since he can't debate worth a scratch.

1. I never blamed Albertas infrastructure on anyone else. Youplay this braindead childish game where you accuse me of doing that again and again and when you finally read me when I say I never once blamed anyone else you produce this babble. I'm sure this passes for "witty" or "intelligent" in Toronto high schools but the rest of the world can see it for what it is.

once again: the only point I ever made regarding Albertas infrastructure is that infrastructure will alway suffer with a population boom. That's all I ever said making the reply you blurt out above nothing more than disconnected childish games.

[Claudius]

who cares what you said

lol!

Spoken like a real adult. What I said matters when you're lying about what I said.

[waldo]

I just finished telling you why the royalty rates are low. You refuse to address this all you can do is scream "BS!" and ask me why again. You screaming BS doesn't mean anything. Do you or do you not understand the principle of remaining competitive? Yes? Then you understand why Alberta royalty rates will be lower than countries who do not charge escrows for environmental clean up or whose wages are astronomically lower than Alebrta's. Do I need to draw you a picture to help you understand this?

This is very easy to understand and screaming "BS" and then throwing out the non-word BigOil doesn't change it.

you're deluded... you've bought into numerous excuses. There is absolutely no reason the Alberta government couldn't choose to increase royalty fees on BigOil. You think BigOil would walk?

in any case, what's that magic buzzword floating around the last days - "sustainable development"! Ya, right. Sustainable to the point of the fastest extraction BigOil can manage/deliver.

[Claudius]

my strawman declaration was in regards to the strawman points you just dropped when discussing Alberta government infrastructure mismanagement; i.e., environmental programs & higher wages. Strawman!

It's not a strawman. Environmental protection costs are higher in Alberta than other parts of the world no matter how many times you scream "BS" and wages are also higher than many other places in the world no matter how many times you scream "BS". This isn't a strawman argument, it's the truth.

Example:

Royalites are lower in Alberta than Nigeria.

However Nigeria pays it's workers $1/day and charges nothing for environmental cleanup.

That you need to be taken by the hand and have it slowly explained to you why this makes Nigeria more competitive if you don't keep the royalty rates lower doesn't surprise me.

That you STILL cannot bring yourself to admit that a infrastructure will always be behind when there's a 10% population surge also doesn't surprise me./

You have done nothing Waldo except continually misrepresent what I say, continually lie about what I am asserting and continually ignore any proof brought forward. You are useless to debate with and I've already beat you so many times....

[Claudius]

you're deluded... you've bought into numerous excuses. There is absolutely no reason the Alberta government couldn't choose to increase royalty fees on BigOil. You think BigOil would walk?

As usual your "counter argument" comes down to "Nah-uh! Is not! Because I say so!"

Environmental protection costs are higher in Alberta than other parts of the world no matter how many times you scream "BS" and wages are also higher than many other places in the world no matter how many times you scream "BS". This isn't a strawman argument, it's the truth.

Example:

Royalites are lower in Alberta than Nigeria.

However Nigeria pays it's workers $1/day and charges nothing for environmental cleanup.

That you refuse to acknowledge this simple truth doesn't surprise me.

You think BigOil would walk?

Obviously that would depend how much you raise it by.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Claudius

[Claudius]

Try understanding this Waldo....I doubt however youll even bother to read it:

How are royalty payments determined?

The Government of Alberta New Royalty Framework (PDF) sets the royalty rates for oilsands projects according to a schedule (PDF) which adjusts both on the financial state of the project and based on the price of oil. The royalty rate is higher the higher is the price of oil, and projects are subject to a lower royalty rate, calculated on gross revenues, until the project has reached payout, or recovered its capital costs. Once payout has been reached, the project is subject to a higher royalty rate, now calculated on net revenues.

What does that mean? Let me explain with a basic example. Assume that the price of oil (West Texas Intermediate, in Canadian dollars) is $100/bbl – at that price, a project would be subject to an initial gross revenue royalty rate of 6.54%, and eventually a net revenue royalty rate of 35.38%, assuming that price stays constant. So, now we have the rates, we need to know the value of production. Since there is not really a fluid market for dry bitumen, the Alberta government derives values bitumen for royalty purposes based the price of diluted bitumen, or dilbit - the value of a barrel of bitumen is determined by what you can sell a barrel of diluted bitumen (WCS) for, less the value of the diluent.* So, in the early years of your facility, if oil prices remain at $100, the project will remit 6.54% of the implied revenues from bitumen sales to the government. Based on market prices in January of this year, the implied price of bitumen was $76/bbl, and the royalty share would have amounted to $4.97/bbl.

These royalty rates continue until the project has reached payout - the point at which the initial and sustaining capital invested in the project has earned a rate of return equivalent to a Canadian government bond. The time to payout will depend on the construction and operating cost of the project, as well as the bitumen revenues net of royalties, so projects pay out more quickly at high oil prices, and less quickly if costs are high.

After the project has reached payout, it moves to a net revenue royalty regime, where the amount owed to the government is determined by bitumen revenue net of operating and sustaining capital costs. For example, if your project has operating costs of $20/bbl (equivalent to 2011 operating costs for Cenovus Christina Lake) and sustaining capital and reclamation costs of $5/bbl, you would have net revenues of $50.99/bbl, based on the derived price of bitumen for January 2012 used above. Your royalty payments would then be the equivalent of $18.04/bbl. As above, you could remit your royalty in-kind, by turning over 0.237 barrels of bitumen for every barrel produced.**

If you look at Alberta’s 2012 Budget, you’ll see that bitumen royalty revenues are expected to be $4.1 billion on 1.85 million barrels per day of production, or an average of $6.10 per barrel. Now you’ve got an idea of why – a lot of new projects paying pre-payout royalties, and high operating costs leading to longer times to payout and lower net revenue royalties from post-payout producers.

Should we raise royalties?

The question of whether we should raise royalties is, for the most part, a two-part issue. First, it’s a distributional question – who should get the rents? Second, it’s a development strategy question – higher royalties imply, all else equal, slower development, lower pre-royalty costs per barrel, and a host of other effects. The important thing to remember is that royalties do not determine the value of the bitumen, but rather they determine whether it will be produced and who gets the value/rents***.

The value of bitumen is determined by the world market for oil. Refiners will not pay more for oil produced in Alberta because we charge a higher royalty rate. Insofar as we are the marginal producer, increasing royalties in Alberta could have a small impact on the world price, but more likely they would simply lead to substitution to other sources at the margin. Assuming that world prices are invariant to small royalty rate changes (on the order of +/- 25%) in Alberta, what would the impact be? The impacts will differ between marginal projects and infra-marginal projects, and for projects already built vs. projects under construction or planned for the future.

For an existing project, an increase in the royalty rate means that a greater share of production goes to the Crown, which means that a smaller share goes to provincial and federal taxes (calculated on revenue net of royalties) and to shareholders – it’s not creating new revenue, it’s simply re-appropriating it. Since royalty rates are initially low, and eventually calculated on net revenue, it’s hard but not impossible for a change in the royalty regime to cause an existing project to outright lose money, but such a change will erode returns to shareholders and lead to a transfer from some Canadians to others – it’s not an entirely free lunch.

It’s easy to think of oilsands companies as being foreign-owned monoliths, but the reality is different. According to Statistics Canada, overall in oil and gas, 35% of assets were foreign-owned in 2009, with 22% being US-owned. Similarly, 41.5% of operating profits were earned by foreign-owned entities. So, for every dollar of what would otherwise be operating profit which is captured by increased royalties, 58.5 cents would be from Canadian companies. These companies are owned not just by the wealthiest of Canadians, but by all Canadians. For example, scan down this list of public equity holdings of the Canada Pension Plan (PDF) and you’ll see Canadian oilsands names like Suncor, Cenovus, and Imperial Oil. Don’t stop there though – check out this list of CPP holdings in foreign, public companies and you’ll see Exxon, Conoco-Phillips, Total and BP. The Quebec Pension Plan holds over $5 billion in oilsands-related stocks. If you have a company or government pension or hold mutual funds, they’ll likely have significant holdings in oilsands firms.

http://andrewleach.ca/oilsands/your-oilsands-royalty-primer/

Maybe find an adult to explain this all to you Waldo. Simpletons blame everything on the "BigOil" bogeyman as though that answers everything. Intelligent people endeavour to understand instead of just relying on a simplistic scape-goat answer they can't even properly explain themselves.

Since you have trouble understanding why a 10% population growth has more of an effect than a 4% population growth I don't hold out much hope for you understanding oil revenue royalty rates.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Claudius

[waldo]

Spoken like a real adult.

oh really... I just wasn't quick enough to grab one of your last gems before you edited it out... you know, where you called someone a "brat". Which aligns quite well with your continued adult display of non-stop labeling others as dishonest and trolls. How very... adult of you, hey?

in any case, it is quite telling to see you so easily come unhinged!

[Claudius]

Oh and BTW royalty rates were raised back in 2007, however it's true that this rate amounts to about 1/2billion less than some study panels have recommended.

[Claudius]

oh really... I just wasn't quick enough to grab one of your last gems before you edited it out... you know, where you called someone a "brat". Which aligns quite well with your continued adult display of non-stop labeling others as dishonest and trolls. How very... adult of you, hey?

in any case, it is quite telling to see you so easily come unhinged!

Yet another post that doesn't address anything. More squirming to avoid having to address a point. And no, stamping your feet insisting I am unhinged doesn't actually make it true, it's just another smokescreen for you to avoid addressing the points.

Did you read this?

http://andrewleach.c...royalty-primer/

nope.

Did you read this?

Sifton’s definition of a desirable immigrant was not shared by all Canadians. As a result of his policy, there was a backlash from people who saw large numbers of immigrants coming from non-British countries. Canada was a member of the British Empire and English Canadians expected the country to keep its links with their motherland strong by bringing in others with common roots.

http://www.british-i...ton_policy.html

Nope!

You don't read anything. You just flame on and on like a troll-energizer bunny.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Claudius

[Claudius]

Anyways it's been fun Waldo but since your posts never amount to anything more than a smokescreen, lying about something I said, mischaracterizing something I said or simply stamping your feet and insisting the facts aren't the facts I'll leave you to your trolling.

I seriously doubt you can intelligently respond to anything I've said without lies, game-playing, obscuration, smokescreens or some other form of childishness. You certainly haven't so far.

[waldo]

It's not a strawman.

no - when the focal point of discussion is your whine about infrastructure (mis)management, beaking off about environmental protection... is a strawman.

Environmental protection costs are higher in Alberta than other parts of the world no matter how many times you scream "BS" and wages are also higher than many other places in the world no matter how many times you scream "BS". This isn't a strawman argument, it's the truth.

Example:

Royalites are lower in Alberta than Nigeria.

However Nigeria pays it's workers $1/day and charges nothing for environmental cleanup.

That you need to be taken by the hand and have it slowly explained to you why this makes Nigeria more competitive if you don't keep the royalty rates lower doesn't surprise me.

you haven't a clue as to the advantages the tarsands present over... "Nigeria" (really, Nigeria! )... advantages that have (very, very) little, to nothing at all, to do with environmental protection costs. Keep on trying, hey?

[waldo]

Did you read this?

http://andrewleach.c...royalty-primer/

I 'gleaned it' and readily dispatched it, particularly when its related tarsands reference link blows-up and it immediately shifts to a combined oil and gas association, setting foreign ownership at 35% (2009). A more timely/accurate accounting as discussed in other recent MLW thread discussion:

Majority of oil sands ownership and profits are foreign

More than two-thirds of all oil sands production in Canada is owned by foreign entities, sending a majority of the industry’s profits out of the country, says a new analysis released Thursday by a British Columbia-based conservation group.

The research by Forest EthicsAdvocacy was based on an analysis of shareholder information in January 2012 from Bloomberg Professional of more than a dozen companies, including nine with headquarters in Canada, and six with their head offices in other countries. It found

71% of the ownership of oilsands production was foreign

, while the foreign-based companies controlled 24.2% of the sector’s production.

“Some notably Canadian oil companies, such as Suncor, Canadian Oil Sands and Husky, are predominantly owned by non-Canadians,” said the report. “The data also shows us that

more than half of Canada’s oil and gas revenue goes to foreign entities

.” The analysis, which also used production data in January from OilsandsReview, a publication that focuses on unconventional oil issues, found $11.7-billion of investments in oilsands production between 2007 and 2011 were coming from

China, making up about 16% of the total investments of $73.6-billion

in that time period.

[Claudius]

no - when the focal point of discussion is your whine about infrastructure (mis)management, beaking off about environmental protection... is a strawman.

I didnt break this off, I answered your inquiry about royalties which led to environmental programs. Once more you show that you're completely unwilling to read what the other person is saying and then you blame them because you can't follow the stream of your own conversation. It's not a strawman Waldo it's called a conversation. You really need to look up strawman.

you haven't a clue as to the advantages the tarsands present over...

Nope. You're the one without a clue about it, this much is obvious.

[Claudius]

I 'gleaned it'

LOL!! I knew you wouldn't read it. Nope, you couldn't even do that. You didn';t read it and you have no idea what it's talking about.

Majority of oil sands ownership and profits are foreign

"OTTAWA — More than two-thirds of all oil sands production in Canada is owned by foreign entities, sending a majority of the industry’s profits out of the country, says a new analysis released Thursday by a

British Columbia-based conservation group.

"

This is a wrong right off the hop and anyone who knows anything about crown land knows that not a square inch of land is owned by foreign interests. All land being mined or used for resource extraction in Canada is

leased

not owned. This is the reality. Saying that it is owned by foreigners makes good reading though. Conservation groups are always lying about this. They take advantage of the fact that officially they are referred to as land lease "sales" even though nothing is actually sold:

Currently 54,000 km2 (total) [PDF] of lands in Alberta have been

leased

for oil sands development with more lands

leased

in government "land sales" every two weeks.

http://www.albertaacts.ca/CitizensGuide/Oilsands

Don't believe that one? Okay try this one:

Lands here are leased with no environmental assessment or public input.

http://www.pembina.org/blog/381

Still don't believe it?

ConocoPhillips currently holds the largest position in the Canadian oil sands with over 1 million acres (4,000 km2) under lease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands

So we can add this "Alberta oil sands are sold to foreigners" as another misconception of yours showing that you don't know squat about the oil sands, royalties or anything else.

Naturally the article you link to has nothing to do with royalties and doesn't mention them anywhere, nor does it counter anything I said about royalties, so one wonders why you bothered to link it.

But then you're nothing more than a game player and a liar. You accused me suggesting that Alberta's infrastructure problems are to be blamed on Ontario, but of course I never ever said that. YOu accuse me of this 3-4 more times even though you know I never blamed another province or the country, I simply pointed out that any province that experiences a population surge will cause the province some infrastructure problems. Doesn't matter if it's Alberta or Ontario. After running around to look for where I supposedly blame someone else you finally realize I never did and you reply with:

wow! You finally... finally... accept the blame for infrastructure mismanagement lies with the Alberta government.

I never once said the Alberta doesn't government share some of the blame or responsibility, of course it does, but that doesn't change the fact that a population surge with affect anyones infrastructure. Also let me teach you a little about English: before one can admit something first they must deny it.

That you remain unwilling to admit the obvious: that a population surge will affect infrastructure is thankfully meaningless since it's an inarguable fact, regardless of whether or not we're talking about alberta or ontario or any other province and regardless of whether or not you choose to believe it.

Do these childish brain-dead rhetorical games work on other people on this forum?

I await your nonsensical response which will doubtless be an attempt to simply insist that whatever I said

"Is not!"

or a complete mischaracterization of what I said in order to make it easier for you to argue with.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Claudius