Claudius Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) 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? Um yes it does. Nigeria charges no environmental clean up or reclamation and Alberta does. This factors into the overall cost of doing business in Alberta which is why the Alberta government has been touchy about raising the royalty rates - their intent was to remain competitive. This is really as simple as 2 + 2 = 4 but I'm not surprised you ahve a problem understanding it. Now my personal opinion is that they could raise them some more but that doesn't enter into your misinformed argument at all. Edited June 2, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
Claudius Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) Majority of oil sands ownership and profits are foreign “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. This is the way it is in nearly every non-nationalized oil and gas industry. There are foreign companies doing the same thing in the US, the middle east and all over Africa and the UK as well. It's pretty standard unless the country is communist or has nationalized the industry (and occasionally even then). Posting this as proof of something merely illuminates your lack of understanding of it, rather than proves anything. It certainly doesn't single out Alberta for anything nefarious. Edited June 2, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
Claudius Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) double post, sorry. Edited June 2, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
waldo Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 You really need to look up strawman. oh really... says the guy who screams "strawman" when I provide a couple of key causal cheese-bit ties to go with your infrastructure mismanagement whine... you know, Ralph Klein admitting the Alberta government had no planning foresight and Alberta giving the 'royalty farm' away. 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?Nope. You're the one without a clue about it, this much is obvious. what's that constant nattering you throw back... oh ya... like this one! As usual your "counter argument" comes down to "Nah-uh! Is not! Because I say so!" Quote
waldo Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 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).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. no - I 'gleaned it' to the point it provides a crucial link that blows-up, where in the same paragraph it purports to speak on tarsands ownership... it doesn't... and nonsensically shifts to talking about Canada-wide, all encompassing combined oil & gas ownership. At that point I bailed on your mighty reference! 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:http://www.albertaacts.ca/CitizensGuide/Oilsands Don't believe that one? Okay try this one: http://www.pembina.org/blog/381 Still don't believe it? 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. do you actually read... anything? The point was tarsands production ownership... not "land ownership"!!! Wow, just wow. 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. if you took the time to read... if you could read... you'd see it was offered in regards the quote taken from your reference - the one presuming to speak on "tarsands ownership". Most contextually apropos... if you could read. 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. don't hesitate to provide a quote where I, as you say, "accused you of blaming Alberta's infrastructure problems on Ontario". I'll accept your apology in advance. 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: no - until you accepted where the blame lie, until you quit whining about strawman, you implicitly were laying the blame elsewhere... anywhere other than where the blame principally lies - with the Alberta government. You now suggest it doesn't matter whether it's Alberta... or Ontario - that certainly didn't factor into your earlier ridiculous rant (and incorrect population growth ratio assignment), attempting to qualify a degree of difficulty, Alberta versus Ontario. 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. ya, ya... like I said, until you were called on it, you never acknowledged where the principal blame lie; again, with the Alberta government. Hey now... what did Ralph Klein say about the Alberta government having, "no plan"! Also let me teach you a little about English: before one can admit something first they must deny it. thanks for the learnin! However, once again, you were in implicit denial by refusing to acknowledge/accept where the principal blame for Alberta infrastructure mismanagement lies... again, with the Alberta government. That it took forever to finally get you to acknowledge/accept that very fact, is a testament to your buffoonery and my perseverance. 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. again, you're arguing with yourself. The question was about degree of management... er... rather, degree of mismanagement - as in Alberta government mismanagement. Ontario had 2.5 times the population increase over Alberta in the period being discussed... you're the only one whining about being unable to cope. Is there some inherent problem with successive Alberta Conservative governments being unable to (fiscally) manage Alberta infrastructure requirements, hey? I mean, really, how much of a revenue windfall does the Alberta government need? 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. you're the only one playing the foolbrain-dead child... calling others liars... calling someone a brat, no less, repeatedly labeling others as dishonest - refusing to actually read what's presented to you. In a thread that benignly throws up an acknowledgement to a disproportional number of males-to-females in Alberta, you've succeeded in establishing your ultra-sensitivities and unfounded hate-mongering. Well done! Quote
waldo Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 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?Um yes it does. Nigeria charges no environmental clean up or reclamation and Alberta does. This factors into the overall cost of doing business in Alberta which is why the Alberta government has been touchy about raising the royalty rates - their intent was to remain competitive. This is really as simple as 2 + 2 = 4 but I'm not surprised you ahve a problem understanding it. really? No concerns over the stability of the Nigerian government? No concerns over the rampant corruption within the Nigerian government? No concerns over the ongoing unrest within the Niger Delta area? No concerns over the OPEC factor? No concerns over requirements to partner within the nationalized construct of the Nigerian governments control on development? No additional concerns over market distribution? No additional concerns over dealing with offshore development? None of that factors in, hey? Just the environmental controls, hey? as for environmental costs you're presuming on, your emphasis is outright puffery; until recently, BigOil had pretty much free-reign on unfettered tarsands development... 40 years plus of toothless, unenforceable environmental policy/laws. In recent other MLW thread discussion I've highlighted the new (presumably) 'get tough' legislation the Alberta government finally came forward with... let's see exactly what it results in, in terms of BigOil response - after all, it only took the threat of international boycotts and domestic lawsuits before the Alberta government, finally, in the last recent years, enacted enforceable (?) legislation. Buddy... in this regard, in most (all?) regards, you're nothing but a blustering know-nothing. Now my personal opinion is that they could raise them some more but that doesn't enter into your misinformed argument at all. bazinga! Why, I imagine those increased royalty revenues would go a long way to better managing the infrastructure requirements in Alberta - ya, think? Quote
waldo Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 This is the way it is in nearly every non-nationalized oil and gas industry. There are foreign companies doing the same thing in the US, the middle east and all over Africa and the UK as well. It's pretty standard unless the country is communist or has nationalized the industry (and occasionally even then). Posting this as proof of something merely illuminates your lack of understanding of it, rather than proves anything. It certainly doesn't single out Alberta for anything nefarious. when the Harper Conservative government, aided and abetted by it's outreach "Ethical Oil" arm, paints anyone daring to question or protest tarsands/pipeline development, as "enemies of Canada"... when the Harper Conservative government manufacturers dissent by challenging charitable donations to Canadian environmental groups by foreign organizations... when the Canadian and Alberta governments secretly work to circumvent European Union fuel standard regulations... etc., etc., etc. - when all of that cascades into a focus on foreign interests, it most certainly is relevant to highlight the foreign ownership of tarsands production and where most of the tarsands revenue is going... to foreign interests outside Canada. it's certainly not surprising to read you advocating for Harper/Alberta Conservative government policy favouring ownership and revenue distribution of tarsands production to foreign interests. Quote
Claudius Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) really? No concerns over the stability of the Nigerian government? No concerns over the rampant corruption within the Nigerian government? No concerns over the ongoing unrest within the Niger Delta area? No concerns over the OPEC factor? No concerns over requirements to partner within the nationalized construct of the Nigerian governments control on development? No additional concerns over market distribution? No additional concerns over dealing with offshore development? None of that factors in, hey? Just the environmental controls, hey? Of course I have concerns in those areas but that's not the subject matter, the only reason I brought up Nigeria was to show the difference in the cost of doing business. That was pretty plain for anyone who can read and comprehend, so naturally this would not include you. You know this perfectly well but since you can't debate it and you can't act like an adult and you can't be honest you now go off rambling about something completely different because you can't face a simple point. Now my personal opinion is that they could raise them some more but that doesn't enter into your misinformed argument at all.bazinga! Why, I imagine those increased royalty revenues would go a long way to better managing the infrastructure requirements in Alberta - ya, think? My, my you're an angry little man aren't you? Yes I imagine it would, just as I'm certain a 2-3% population increase instead of a 10% population increase would take off the pressure. See that's the difference between you and I: I'm an intelligent adult who can handle the fact that there are multiple factors, and can be honest about it, whereas you aren't. no - I 'gleaned it' to the point it provides a crucial link that blows-up... Nope, you didn't read it at all. You don't read anything, practically speaking you're sitting here arguing against what you imagine other people are saying. That much has been evident throughout this entire conversation. do you actually read... anything? The point was tarsands production ownership... not "land ownership"!!! Wrong. Hilarious. You don't even know what your own point was. Your point was the extreme profits not ownership and as I pointed out to you, as everyone who can read knows, these mutli-national companies do the very same business all over the globe. It wouldn't matter if it was Alberta or the U.K. the ownership and profit destinations would be the same. Everyone knows this but only a little dishonest child would argue it all day. don't hesitate to provide a quote where I, as you say, "accused you of blaming Alberta's infrastructure problems on Ontario". Sure princess, right after you find the quote where I denied the Alberta government has any responsibility in the matter or that the infrastructure problems were someone else's fault. We all know you can't otherwise you would've. no - until you accepted where the blame lie, until you quit whining about strawman, you implicitly were laying the blame elsewhere... Nope. Never did once. Man it's insane how much you rely on lies. My point always was simply that a surge of population will put pressure on infrastructure - THAT'S IT, NOTHING MORE. That was the only point I was making about it and for 7 pages you couldn't read that properly. Still can't. By all means go find where I was laying blame elsewhere. It's not my fault you're a little child who can't understand plain English. I mean listen to your silly little self. I say, "The surge in population makes keeping up with infrastructure difficult", but what you read is "It's not Albertas fault! It' someone elses'". Like I say, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with voices in your head apparently. 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.no - until you accepted where the blame lie, until you quit whining about strawman, you implicitly were laying the blame elsewhere... Nope, we were arguing about population surges and the effect it has on infrastructure. "implicitly laying the blame elsewhere" he says, because he can't find a quote to back that nonsense up and because he's not honest or adult enough to admit a simple point. No I was not implying this, that would be the sound of the voices in your head apparently. Time and time again Waldo you prove to everyone you simply cannot handle arguing what people say, but instead must argue what you wish they said. If you can't argue what people say but instead must argue what you decide they're implying then your can't really argue at all can you? No, you can't. So shut up. And when you can't argue that point you started making up this crap about me laying blame elsewhere simply because I can understand a basic truism you apparently can't admit: that population affects infrastructure. That's it. Nothing more. You argued that for 10 pages and you'll probably argue it for ten more pages telling me what I'm really saying, LOL! You can't argue that so now you waste your time dancing around with this completely baseless accusation that I was laying blame elsewhere. No I wasn't and you know full well I wasn't or we all know you'd be right here with a quote from me that proves it. You know you're wrong, now you're relegated to stomping your feet and insisting your lie is true, like a little shallow useless child. you're the only one playing the foolbrain-dead child... calling others liars... Well you're either a liar or beyond stupid. I decided liar was less insulting. You're lying on this page like a brat telling me what I'm supposedly insinuating because you can't argue what I'm actually saying. That's called lying Waldo. That makes you a liar. You've been lying from the start and you're lying right now with this baloney accusation that I was laying the blame for Alberta's infrastructure on someone else. Nowhere do I do that. Over and over and over again I simply point out that an influx of population affects infrastructure and over and over and over you refuse to admit this inarguable fact and instead you play silly transparent games like telling me to forget what I actually said, and that what I'm "really doing" is laying the blame elsewhere. No I'm not, and I never once did. If you can't argue what people say then STFU. It's obvious you are the biggest child on this forum. Edited June 2, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
Claudius Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 it's certainly not surprising to read you advocating for Harper/Alberta Conservative government policy favouring ownership and revenue distribution of tarsands production to foreign interests. LOL!! Again he sits here arguing with the voices in his head instead of what is plainly written. Nowhere do I say this, I merely point out the way it works. And this "policy" of allowing foreign companies to do business in the oil sands and elsewhere in Canada is hardly "Harpers policy", HAHAHAHAHA! But then we can't blame you for not knowing what happened before Harper since that was probably back when you were 8 years old. All over Canada, for the past 50 years or more, multinational companies have been doing business in every sector and in every province from oil and gas to lumber to mining. But whatever. Live in whatever dreamwolrd you need to live in, it's obvious your mind would break if you had to deal with reality, just as it's obvious it would break if you had to argue what people say rather than what you imagine or wish they would say. Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
waldo Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 That was pretty plain for anyone who can read and comprehend, so naturally this would not include you.You know this perfectly well but since you can't debate it and you can't act like an adult and you can't be honest My, my you're an angry little man aren't you? I'm an intelligent adult who can handle the fact that there are multiple factors, and can be honest about it, whereas you aren't. Everyone knows this but only a little dishonest child would argue it all day. Sure princess Man it's insane how much you rely on lies. It's not my fault you're a little child who can't understand plain English. I mean listen to your silly little self. No, you can't. So shut up. You know you're wrong, now you're relegated to stomping your feet and insisting your lie is true, like a little shallow useless child. Well you're either a liar or beyond stupid. I decided liar was less insulting. You're lying on this page like a brat That makes you a liar. You've been lying from the start If you can't argue what people say then STFU. It's obvious you are the biggest child on this forum. there is nothing... nothing... sweeter than reading a full-blown meltdown! Well done! Quote
Claudius Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) there is nothing... nothing... sweeter than reading a full-blown meltdown! Well done! Once again Waldo shows us he can't argue what was said, only occasionally what he wishes someone said. Not once in your own little rants do you ever address what was plainly said, instead you concoct something from your imagination and then go on ranting and insisting your opponent said something else, because if you had to address what they actually said you wouldn't be able to continue arguing. You can't argue that a population surge doesn't affect infrastructure so like a child you invent something I'm "insinuating" with this plain assertion. That makes you a liar, a brat and completely useless forum pollution. There is nothing...nothing...sweeter than illuminating a child like like yourself for what he is, especially when he's too arrogant or juvenile to see how silly he looks. Thanks! Almost as sweet as the inherent victory from coming back to see he can't reply with anything but more transparent juvenility. It's truly amusing to watch you prance around like a victorious puppy when all you've done is make a complete fool of yourself. I've never seen someone kick and cry so much just because they've run out of things to argue with. Let's illustrate your delusional illogical nature one more time. I point out how the multinational companies work and instead of addressing it (since you can't) you decide I'm "advocating" it: it's certainly not surprising to read you advocating for Harper/Alberta Conservative government policy favouring ownership and revenue distribution of tarsands production to foreign interests. I didn't advocate it anywhere, I merely explained how it works for you. I suppose if a doctor explained to you how cancer operates you'd accuse him of being "pro-cancer". Also it's not surprising that the only qualifier you need to decide someone is conservative is the fact that they disagree with something totally brain dead that you've said. But then it's been established over and over again that you're not arguing with me but rather with whatever the voices in your head are saying. When you grow up and find the intelligence or courage to actually address and argue what someone plainly says instead of whatever demented concoction you stamp your feet and insist they're "insinuating", let me know. Edited June 2, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
waldo Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 When you grow up and find the intelligence or courage to actually address and argue what someone plainly says instead of whatever you demented concoction you stamp your feet and insist they're "insinuating", let me know. right...back...at...you! nice to read you've somewhat gathered your composure and have calmed... somewhat. You must be a newb to forum discussion, hey? now, when you so nonchalantly cast off the inordinate degree of 70+% tarsands foreign ownership as nothing more than "doing business"... when you so 'matter-of-fact' accept the majority of tarsands revenue is going to foreign entities - just more of your "doing business"... you, correspondingly, by default accept the assorted facets of Harper & Alberta Conservative government actions pointed out to you - you own them... it's just business, right? Why, in the name of just, "doing business", you're implicitly advocating for the Harper & Alberta Conservative actions pointed out to you - just doin bidness, hey! when the Harper Conservative government, aided and abetted by it's outreach "Ethical Oil" arm, paints anyone daring to question or protest tarsands/pipeline development, as "enemies of Canada"... when the Harper Conservative government manufacturers dissent by challenging charitable donations to Canadian environmental groups by foreign organizations... when the Canadian and Alberta governments secretly work to circumvent European Union fuel standard regulations... etc., etc., etc. - when all of that cascades into a focus on foreign interests, it most certainly is relevant to highlight the foreign ownership of tarsands production and where most of the tarsands revenue is going... to foreign interests outside Canada. it's certainly not surprising to read you advocating for Harper/Alberta Conservative government policy favouring ownership and revenue distribution of tarsands production to foreign interests. let me be most clear in the above... there's no need for you to go off on another missive, pulling out links left and right - as before, this particular point is about foreign ownership of tarsands production... not land ownership! It would be a shame to have you make another most significant error... your same previous error... and divert this thread even further away from it's 'Alberta sausagefest' OP. carry on! Quote
Claudius Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) right...back...at...you! Doesn't even make senese. nice to read you've somewhat gathered your composure and have calmed... I was never upset. That's just you arguing with the voices in your head again.now, when you so nonchalantly cast off the inordinate degree of 70+% tarsands foreign ownership as nothing more than "doing business"... Again this isn't what I said. Again either you can't read simple English or you're lying. I pointed out that this is the way it is in a vast number of countries who do oil and gas business with multinationals. Pretty simple really, which is why you can't argue on that basis. I also pointed out the inarguable differences in the cost of doing business in Canada as opposed to doing business in, for example, Nigeria. You don't have the intellect to understand this, or you don't have the honesty to admit the difference you suddenly you go off on a rant about how apparently I "don't care" about human rights abuses in Nigeria. Pretty pathetic. when you so 'matter-of-fact' accept the majority of tarsands revenue is going to foreign entities - just more of your "doing business"... you, correspondingly, by default accept the assorted facets of Harper & Alberta Conservative government actions Nnnnnope. Not for anyone who understands English. First off it's not "Harpers actions", it's Trudeaus, Clarkes, Mulronys, Chretiens, Martins and Harpers. This much is plain for anyone honest, but I guess that discounts you.Secondly I do not "by default" (again you need to argue insinuations instead of what is plainly said) accept it simply because I explained it. Perhaps you can find an adult nearby to explain the difference to you. I tried to show you how if a doctor simply explained cancer to you this doesn't mean he's "pro-cancer", but apparently even this easy-to-understand explanation eludes you. Of course it's not that you don't understand, it's that you can't argue it so you need to make something up. There's that dishonesty of yours again. Why, in the name of just, "doing business", you're implicitly advocating for the Harper & Alberta Conservative actions pointed out to you - just doin bidness, hey! I'm not. Never did. Was never the topic. The topic was something else you couldn't continue to argue so now you resort to transparent game playing. See above. let me be most clear in the above... there's no need for you to go off on another missive, pulling out links left and right - as before, this particular point is about foreign ownership of tarsands production... not land ownership! Oh wow look at that! Waldo finally admits he had a misconception about something and begs me not to explain it to him again. Very good Waldo. It would be a shame to have you make another most significant error... your same previous error... and divert this thread even further away from it's 'Alberta sausagefest' OP. Blah blah blah. More transparent dishonest game playing. You're the one who changes the subject every time he gets into trouble and loses the debate. When someone makes a point that a population surge can affect infrastructure it's not a "significant error" if he guesses 25% increase and instead it was only 10%. I'm pretty sure even a 10-year-old can recognize that this doesn't discount the point, whereas you couldn't understand or admit the point for a dozen pages. Besides there's no end to the list of mistakes you've made on this thread which is why you're so over the edge and emotional. Again just let me know when you grow up enough to argue what is said and not what you conveniently insist someone is "insinuating". Edited June 2, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
waldo Posted June 2, 2012 Report Posted June 2, 2012 Blah blah blah. right...back...at...you! You're the one who changes the subject every time he gets into trouble and loses the debate. your overwhelming need to repeatedly declare 'victory' is quite telling... it most certainly aligns with the ultra-sensitivity and lack of confidence you displayed over the benign 'sausagefest'! as for you, again, mentioning Nigeria... as pointed out to you in punishing detail, operations in Nigeria bring forward concerns over much more than your simplistic reach for comparative environmental costs. as for you now attempting to 'save face' over your stumbling/bumbling diversionary nonsense over lease land... you now own that. You really should take time to read - foreign tarsands production ownership has nothing to do with your "owning/leasing crown lands"! as for you now attempting to deflect the most recent Harper & Alberta Conservative actions pointed out to you... to push them back on to, as you say, "Trudeau, Clark, Mulroney, Chretien, Martin" - that ain't going to fly, Wilber! however, note: I recognize we are making progress... you are beginning to come around. I am sincerely heartened to read you acknowledge your pulling out the Alberta 25% population rise ratio figure was nothing more than, as you say, a guess! A guess you liberally applied and ran with over successive posts/pages of this thread... until you were called on it. Sorry to burst your guessing bubble, hey? I'll also note that when you finally accepted the correct 10% figure... somehow... your fake sausagefest outrage wasn't reduced by a corresponding factor - go figure! Quote
Claudius Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) your overwhelming need to repeatedly declare 'victory' is quite telling... it most certainly aligns with the ultra-sensitivity and lack of confidence you displayed over the benign 'sausagefest'! as for you, again, mentioning Nigeria... as pointed out to you in punishing detail, operations in Nigeria bring forward concerns over much more than your simplistic reach for comparative environmental costs. Blah blah blah. It's like you think you have audience to play it up to. as for you now attempting to 'save face' over your stumbling/bumbling diversionary nonsense over lease land... facts that destroy the contention that Canadian oil sands lands are being sold off to foreign companies he likes to call "stumbling". There's that juvenile dishonesty again You really should take time to read - foreign tarsands production ownership has nothing to do with your "owning/leasing crown lands"! Wow. You really can't read and you really don't know the definitions you're flinging around. The story you posted claimed foreign ownership, and I posted three links that show the land is not owned but leased, and now predictably you claim it wasn't relevant. Also now you think your point is still valid because you learned the phrase "production ownership", but what you're probably unaware of is that the production rights only last as long as the lease, so it is also a "production lease". No ownership. The point of the story you posted is to attempt to convince the reader that Canada or rather the oil sands land is being sold off to foreign countries. As in we no longer own it. This too is what you believe(d) because this was the expressed point of linking the story. Now that I've educated you to the fact that no foreign countries own any oil sands land, or the unlimited rights to the resources within, and to varying degree this is true all over the nation (each province has slightly different rules) you pretend this was never your point....leaving you with no point at all. Congrats. I've rarely seen someone paint themselves into a corner so well. ...as for you now attempting to deflect the most recent Harper & Alberta Conservative actions pointed out to you... to push them back on to, as you say, "Trudeau, Clark, Mulroney, Chretien, Martin" - that ain't going to fly, Wilber! Had nothing to do with "Harpers most recent actions", and you never pointed them out to me. Your claim is that this practice of leasing production land/rights to foreign companies starts with something Harper did and you are completely wrong. There's just no way around that, in fact it's laughable to suggest. I merely pointed that out. No "deflection" to it. Amusing the way you label a fact that kills our preposterous contention a "delection". The entire nation has practiced this for almost 80+ years. Oil, gas, lumber, mining. Foreign companies have been leasing these lands for resource extraction since WWII. You seriously think it starts with Harper? That you don't know this is hilarious, or that you do know it but can't admit it is typical. however, note: I recognize we are making progress... you are beginning to come around. I am sincerely heartened to read you acknowledge your pulling out the Alberta 25% population rise ratio figure was nothing more than, as you say, a guess! A guess you liberally applied and ran with over successive posts/pages of this thread... until you were called on it. Sorry to burst your guessing bubble, hey? I'll also note that when you finally accepted the correct 10% figure... Unfortunately you still can't remember what you were arguing with this 25%/10% discrepancy. It's kind of pathetic to watch you display less retention than a sack of hammers, or perhaps this is just your deflection from the fact that I proved the inarguable, unquestionable fact that a population surge will affect infrastructure. It's as undeniable as 2 + 2 = 4 and after all that is what we were arguing about> It figures your fragile ego is sheltering you from this reality by erasing it from your memory. Edited June 3, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
waldo Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 as for you, again, mentioning Nigeria... as pointed out to you in punishing detail, operations in Nigeria bring forward concerns over much more than your simplistic reach for comparative environmental costs.Blah blah blah. It's like you think you have audience to play it up to. excellent... I trust this ends your nonsense casting (presumed) additional environmental costs as an overwhelming burden to Alberta tarsands producers... as compared to Nigeria and the plethora of additional concerns/cost of doing business in Nigeria. as for you now attempting to 'save face' over your stumbling/bumbling diversionary nonsense over lease land... you now own that. You really should take time to read - foreign tarsands production ownership has nothing to do with your "owning/leasing crown lands"! facts that destroy the contention that Canadian oil sands lands are being sold off to foreign companies he likes to call "stumbling". There's that juvenile dishonesty again Wow. You really can't read and you really don't know the definitions you're flinging around. The story you posted claimed foreign ownership, and I posted three links that show the land is not owned but leased, and now predictably you claim it wasn't relevant. Also now you think your point is still valid because you learned the phrase "production ownership", but what you're probably unaware of is that the production rights only last as long as the lease, so it is also a "production lease". No ownership. The point of the story you posted is to attempt to convince the reader that Canada or rather the oil sands land is being sold off to foreign countries. As in we no longer own it. This too is what you believe(d) because this was the expressed point of linking the story. Now that I've educated you to the fact that no foreign countries own any oil sands land, or the unlimited rights to the resources within, and to varying degree this is true all over the nation (each province has slightly different rules) you pretend this was never your point....leaving you with no point at all. Congrats. I've rarely seen someone paint themselves into a corner so well. not sure why you would choose to double-down on this continued error of yours. The Financial Post linked article, and posted quote extracts from it, clearly speak to foreign production ownership and the majority of profits from tar sands operations flowing to foreign companies... is your continued beaking off over land/lease ownership indicative on your degree of self-proclaimed honesty? In any case, the article/analysis is provided for you to refute... should you choose to pull yourself out of your land/lease funk, hey? as for you now attempting to deflect the most recent Harper & Alberta Conservative actions pointed out to you... to push them back on to, as you say, "Trudeau, Clark, Mulroney, Chretien, Martin" - that ain't going to fly, Wilber! Had nothing to do with "Harpers most recent actions", and you never pointed them out to me. Your claim is that this practice of leasing production land/rights to foreign companies starts with something Harper did and you are completely wrong. There's just no way around that, in fact it's laughable to suggest. I merely pointed that out. No "deflection" to it. Amusing the way you label a fact that kills our preposterous contention a "delection". The entire nation has practiced this for almost 80+ years. Oil, gas, lumber, mining. Foreign companies have been leasing these lands for resource extraction since WWII. You seriously think it starts with Harper? That you don't know this is hilarious, or that you do know it but can't admit it is typical. the point was tarsands foreign ownership and profiteering... no matter how hard you try to deflect from it. In that context, relevant, recent Harper & Alberta Conservative government actions were highlighted... no matter how hard you try to deflect from them: when the Harper Conservative government, aided and abetted by it's outreach "Ethical Oil" arm, paints anyone daring to question or protest tarsands/pipeline development, as "enemies of Canada"... when the Harper Conservative government manufacturers dissent by challenging charitable donations to Canadian environmental groups by foreign organizations... when the Canadian and Alberta governments secretly work to circumvent European Union fuel standard regulations... etc., etc., etc. - when all of that cascades into a focus on foreign interests, it most certainly is relevant to highlight the foreign ownership of tarsands production and where most of the tarsands revenue is going... to foreign interests outside Canada. however, note: I recognize we are making progress... you are beginning to come around. I am sincerely heartened to read you acknowledge your pulling out the Alberta 25% population rise ratio figure was nothing more than, as you say, a guess! A guess you liberally applied and ran with over successive posts/pages of this thread... until you were called on it. Sorry to burst your guessing bubble, hey? I'll also note that when you finally accepted the correct 10% figure... somehow... your fake sausagefest outrage wasn't reduced by a corresponding factor - go figure!Unfortunately you still can't remember what you were arguing with this 25%/10% discrepancy. It's kind of pathetic to watch you display less retention than a sack of hammers, or perhaps this is just your deflection from the fact that I proved the inarguable, unquestionable fact that a population surge will affect infrastructure. It's as undeniable as 2 + 2 = 4 and after all that is what we were arguing about> It figures your fragile ego is sheltering you from this reality by erasing it from your memory. no - I remember very well how you were simply arguing with yourself... and how dismissive you were of Ontario being able to manage infrastructure requirements for a population increase 2.5 times that of Alberta during the period being discussed. Equally, I recall you being quite flummoxed over me providing that link highlighting former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein admitting his government, "had no plan", to manage infrastructure requirements brought on by the massive tarsands development impact on Alberta. again, you're arguing with yourself. The question was about degree of management... er... rather, degree of mismanagement - as in Alberta government mismanagement. Ontario had 2.5 times the population increase over Alberta in the period being discussed... you're the only one whining about being unable to cope. Is there some inherent problem with successive Alberta Conservative governments being unable to (fiscally) manage Alberta infrastructure requirements, hey? I mean, really, how much of a revenue windfall does the Alberta government need? Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) LOL! More propaganda brought to you by the venerable "Hate the West" centralists. I love to watch Centralist yuppy-larvae babbling about how they know all about Alberta or the West....I especially love it when they use a southern drawl to mimic them, proving only that the person in question has never left their home town. The hate the Center/East has for the West is amusing if only because it makes them look so very stupid. Well, as an Easterner, I can only say that the hate and insults flow both ways (as your own post underlines, "defensive" though you may believe it to be). Whereas we here in the Atlantic Provinces are hardworking, kind and decent people in comparison to both y'all. Well...okay, we're kind and decent people, at least. Or...well, there are people here, anyway...... Edited June 3, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Michael Hardner Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 If you took the time to read the context you can see we were talking specifically West/Center-East comparisons. Montreal would land in the same group. I don't really hear people in the east say bad things about westerners. On this board, though, there are westerners who say negative things about easterners, such as Fletch (I think he said "not nice") on this thread. In any case, prejudice is prejudice. I was in Calgary about 25 years ago, and it was typical of any new city at that time - no better no worse. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Claudius Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) Waldo: As usual your post says nothing. Let me know when you can argue what was said instead of what you wish was said. Michael: I don't really hear people in the east say bad things about westerners. On this board, though, there are westerners who say negative things about easterners, such as Fletch (I think he said "not nice") on this thread. The worst thing I said about the East or rather Ontario specifically is that they arrogantly believe they are more sophisticated and inherently smarter than those in the rest of the country, but especially the West, and especially Alberta; they have the arrogant belief that they somehow deserve to be in a position to tell the West what to do or to even run/govern it themselves. This attitude has evolved from a ethnic build up of non-English speaking Europeans during the turn of the century, who were considered rubes and backwater peasants by English Ontario. I've backed this up with articles from the time and I'm far from the only one who thinks this attitude continues to this day. Now I know it's not a nice thing to hear Micheal and yet..... Here we are: in a thread, started by someone from Ontario whose original point serves no purpose but to childishly jab at Alberta and babble a bunch of nonsense about how it's not such a great place to live after all even though it's obvious he's never been there; A thread littered posts from Waldo and MiddleClassCentralist, (Ontario poster), who are not economists or anything of the sort, who don't even understand the basics of land schemes for resource extraction, who can't even understand that 10% is bigger than 4%, running around arrogantly, ignorantly, pontificating like the Black Knight from The Holy Grail about how "Alberta can't economically manage itself properly". ...Wait it gets better.... We watch this attitude coming from Ontario posters, from Eastern posters, against the backdrop of Ontario tanking economically because they can't manage themselves properly; we get this against the backdrop of Quebec tanking because it can't manage itself properly, and against the backdrop of Alberta doing far and away better economically than any other province in the country....and it's been like that for 10 years or so now, not to mention the fact that Ontario has been building its' economy/infrastructure for 100 years longer than Alberta was in any position to do. It is within that reality that arrogant Ontarionians think they can babble nonsense about how Alberta isn't managing themselves properly. Like I say they think they have an inherent right, they think they are never wrong and that the 'orbiting colonies' need their "wise" guidance. Mostly the young ones do it out of jealously, but the young ones are the funniest. It really is a fascinating feat to watch, something like an Olympiad of Hypocrisy or Ignorant Arrogance, and honestly the nature of these replies have done nothing but prove my point for me. Edited June 3, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
bleeding heart Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 It really is a fascinating feat to watch, something like an Olympiad of Hypocrisy or Ignorant Arrogance, and honestly these replies have proven my point for me. Which replies? Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Claudius Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 Which replies? If you haven't been following the thread I can't help you, but then if you haven't been following the thread then its' contents arent' something that should concern you. Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
bleeding heart Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 If you haven't been following the thread I can't help you, but then if you haven't been following the thread then its' contents arent' something that should concern you. You're a prickly pear, aren'tcha? Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 You're a prickly pear, aren'tcha? Looking for a friend? Get a dog. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bleeding heart Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 Looking for a friend? Get a dog. I'm not looking for a friend, but I appreciate the advice! Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Claudius Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) You're a prickly pear, aren'tcha? Honestly not meaning any offense Bleeding Heart, but if you read what I said about the nature of the posts I'm talking about then it won't take you very long to find them. I feel vindicated. I'm not going to bother continuing with Waldo since it's pointless to argue with someone who only argues what they claim you say instead of what you do say, or who timidly refuse to address the point being made. I don't hold the same attitude for you as I've read some of your posts and they don't seem irrational or childish. Edited June 3, 2012 by Claudius Quote There is virtually no difference between the 3 major parties once they get into power.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.