Alberta Election May 2015

[Claudius]

---"You're not really sure how sales taxes work...do you?"

I know that businesses who need to buy supplies or sell product complain about sales taxes. That's how they work.

All sales taxes (PST, HST, and GST) are flow throughs for a business meaning it doesn't actually affect them.

Complete and utter nonsense. All companies buy supplies, all companies pay wages - which are affected by the tax rates, most companies are selling products which are affected by sales taxes. All of those things affect the fertility of the business environment.

Seriously if you're going to try and sell this, "businesses aren't affected by sales tax" nonsense I can just ignore you now. No worries. On the other hand if you would like to learn more about why sales taxes affect businesses negatively please read:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-making-canada-an-attractive-place-to-do-business

Yes...I said it. The last election wasn't called early nor did the PC's accept the Wild Rose defectors. Add to it that in 2012, the Wild Rose was hit hard by that one candidate making harsh claims about homosexuality and the lake of fire. Most Albertan's aren't into the really far right wing thing. All this aside, the largest factor in play here was again the teachers and civil servants unions. The last election the PCs promised a ton of benefits at the last minute which swung the unions votes to the PCs. This time the PCs knew that it will be unsustainable to maintain those 'highest in Canada' payscales and was looking to cut back. Hence the mass exodus with the unions. If anything, it just goes to show how much power the unions have in Alberta.

Not seeing anything here that contradicts what I said except the part about unions determining the outcome of the election. Nonsense.

In 2003, Saskatchewan was being run by and NDP government that didn't care to develop its oil resources. Its only been as of late that Saskatchewan Party (a right wing government) has started to develop oil resources and make it a serious competitor for Alberta. Also, at that time BC's tax rates was even higher than Alberta.

BC and Saskatchewans tax rates are STILL higher then the proposed, so I don't see your point here.

Seriously??? This has to be one of the stupidest comments I've heard on here. Why would we ever want to or need to do that? Left wingers are complaining about the ability to buy a house now? Try doing it with 20% interest rates.

Why not try looking at it without the mythical 20% interest rates? Fact is a house that was $300K 5 years ago is $500k today. They're over-valued, mostly because of the influx of people.

This has to be one of the stupidest comments I've heard on here

Really? "I predict another PC majority" is the stupidest thing I've read on this thread. Or maybe it was "sales taxes don't really affect businesses".

Edited May 10, 2015 by Claudius

[Derek 2.0]

Because promises often get deluted after an election.

But you think they will raise the corporate tax and oil royalties.....

Listen if you're not going to listen to me or read my posts then let's stop pretending you're responding. I just finished showing you that jobs have increased steadily since Februrary. So before Alberta can "lose more jobs" they'll have to stop gaining them so easily won't they?

Job growth and decline are fungible.......the NDP's polices weren't in play several months ago.

Cresent point energy is a tiny player, new to Alberta with new projects and does most of their business in Saskatchewan already.

Crescent Point is valued more than Nexan, Talisman and Encana in the gas exploration industry.....hardly a small player.

If you think Shell is going to close down a trillion dollar investment over LESS royalties than they paid in 2003, WHEN THEY STARTED DEVELOPMENT, you're the one who's delusional.

Shell has been reducing both investment and workforce in Alberta for months........and you expect that when the NDP Government raises their taxes and royalty rates that Shell will reverse this trend?

No that's just your prediction, considering your prediction of the election I don't find it compelling.

Oh well.

It's plain you're just here to argue pointlessly while ignoring the other person so I'll be ignoring you from here on in.

Whatever gets you through the night........but I'll say this, buy in Northern BC/Saskatchewan now....and if you own currently in Alberta, sell before the real estate market tanks.....enjoy the next four years

[Claudius]

"Please provide an example of the PLENTY that you're talking about."

Kinda hard to do now that the list is down to 11.

"Also be very specific to show their lack of experience and more importantly their lack of desire to actual to run for the MLA seat (as I have shown with the NDP)""

Why do I need to show that? I'm not countering that point. I merely pointed out that there were many young and inexperienced PC candidates. One guy was 22 and his claim to fame was making one(1) web site.

How about this: maybe you can explain how the PC's can be so experienced and still miscalculate their own royalties.

[Claudius]

But you think they will raise the corporate tax and oil royalties.....

Maybe. As I pointed out before, they need only calculate the royalties correctly to gain $2.5 billion per year. Maybe they'll review it and decide not to change it. I do think they'll raise the corporate tax rate, but they may only raise it 1% instead, for example.

Job growth and decline are fungible.......the NDP's polices weren't in play several months ago

No, but the price of oil was even lower than it was today. Point is despite the low oil prices, despite the doomsaying, Alberta keeps gaining jobs. Your prediction that the NDP policies will change that when the price of oil is now climbing back to normal every day is not convincing to me.

If Alberta is gaining jobs with a $40/barrel of oil, predicting job loses over a 2% tax hike when oil prices are back to $80-$100 a barrel, which will be within 6 weeks if we go by the previous 6 weeks...

...well again, 'not a compelling predicition' is the most polite phrase I can think of.

Crescent Point is valued more than Nexan, Talisman and Encana in the gas exploration industry.....hardly a small player.

303 employees is a small player. Especially when you mentioned them in line with Shell and Suncor. As I proved most of their business is already in Sask, and their projects in Alberta are new. Nexens' investment in the oil sands is also small - 5%.

"The company's (Cresent Point) two major resource plays are the Bakken formation in southeast Saskatchewan, and Shaunavon in southwest Saskatchewan.

Emerging plays include southern Alberta, where Crescent Point has amassed more than one million net acres of land, and Flat Lake, an area in southern Saskatchewan, North Dakota and Utah."

Shell has been reducing both investment and workforce in Alberta for months.

Yes actually I said that. All based on new projects.

Are you trying to contend this has something to do with the NDP and not the price of oil? If not then I don't see your point.

....and you expect that when the NDP Government raises their taxes and royalty rates that Shell will reverse this trend?

Okay so now we're talking in circles because you refuse to read my posts. Perhaps I'll try slower now:

Shell was PAYING MORE (do you know what more means?) corporate taxes in 2003 WHEN THEY STARTED. You think they're going to close it now that they'd be paying LESS (do you nkow what that means?) taxes? Now that their third largest mine in Canada is profitable, and they were paying more in 2003 when they started? If you do, we disagree.

No that's just your prediction, considering your prediction of the election I don't find it compelling.

Oh well.

oh well this is all about predicitions isn't it? You think your ability to predict is meaningless when examining your further predictions? Okay.

I on the other hand predicted an NDP majority.

enjoy the next four years

I will. Continue to enjoy making losing predictions.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Claudius

[jacee]

Derek is the doom-sayer today.

Political sour grapes, I say.

The NDP said they will "review" royalties ... because the PC'S somehow miscalculated and collected too little. As Claudius said ... they can boost them just by collecting what they're supposed to.

Anybody else think it's odd that the companies kept quiet about not being asked for the full amount they must have been expecting?

Anybody else wonder whether this was some under the table payoff?

.

.

[Derek 2.0]

Maybe. As I pointed out before, they need only calculate the royalties correctly to gain $2.5 billion per year. Maybe they'll review it and decide not to change it. I do think they'll raise the corporate tax rate, but they may only raise it 1% instead, for example.

So you're guessing and of the assumption that the Alberta NDP can do anything.......great, so to is the energy sector, hence the (current) pause on further investment in Alberta..........As already stated, when the previous PC Government, a Government "in the pocket" of the energy sector, fiddled with rates in the gas industry, most in the sector ceased operations for ~1 week as a warning, then the Government readjusted the rates to the current structure.....yet still didn't recoup the investments lost to Saskatchewan and North Dakota.

No, but the price of oil was even lower than it was today. Point is despite the low oil prices, despite the doomsaying, Alberta keeps gaining jobs. Your prediction that the NDP policies will change that when the price of oil is now climbing back to normal every day is not convincing to me.

Let me know when the O&G sector returns to levels associated with this time last year....

The price of oil is climbing, slowly, but Alberta is already one of the most expensive jurisdictions to produce energy on Earth.......and the NDP has promised to increase the cost of doing business.....and you think this is good for industry?

303 employees is a small player. Especially when you mentioned them in line with Shell and Suncor. As I proved most of their business is already in Sask, and their projects in Alberta are new. Nexens' investment in the oil sands is also small - 5%.

"The company's (Cresent Point) two major resource plays are the Bakken formation in southeast Saskatchewan, and Shaunavon in southwest Saskatchewan.

Emerging plays include southern Alberta, where Crescent Point has amassed more than one million net acres of land, and Flat Lake, an area in southern Saskatchewan, North Dakota and Utah."

Thanks for the wikipedia update.......but I already receive quarterly statements.

Yes actually I said that. Are you trying to contend this has something to do with the NDP and not the price of oil? If not then I don't see your point.

I can tell you don't see my point.........these reductions from Shell are due to the then declining price in oil, from a peak of over $100 bbl last Summer. To reverse these reductions, the price of oil will have to return to the $100 bbl+ mark to be viable for Shell. Where the NDP comes in now is that they have promised to increase taxes and royalty rates, pushing the corporations threshold further away from returning to viability........in affect, making it more costly to do business in Alberta.

Shell was PAYING MORE (do you know what more means?) corporate taxes in 2003 WHEN THEY STARTED. You think they're going to close it now that they'd be paying LESS (do you nkow what that means?) taxes today now that it's profitable, than in 2003 when they started? If you do, we disagree.

Yes, Shell, like any other player in the O&G sector has already demonstrated that they will halt and curtail production and exploration when profitability declines........the NDP will push this threshold even further, how much further is yet to be determined as the NDP has yet to lay-out their future path of destruction.

[Claudius]

So you're guessing and of the assumption that the Alberta NDP can do anything...

k, done with you now. I stopped reading you right there and will be ignoring you from here on in.

Assuming that the NDP can calculate royalty rates properly is not assuming that they can do anything. And frankly, you're guessing as well.

You can't argue what I say, you have to try and argue what you *wish* I said. No time for that level of childish dishonesty.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Claudius

[Derek 2.0]

Derek is the doom-sayer today.

Political sour grapes, I say.

.

.

Doom sayer? Perhaps, but also a realist that understands the energy sector...........sour grapes, not at all, I live in British Columbia....if the new Alberta Government discourages investment in the energy sector in Alberta, investment funds will land in both British Columbia and Saskatchewan (and in several US States), further benefiting my own Province.....If Alberta wishes to chase the Golden Goose out of the Province for the next four years into my own, I say let them.

[Derek 2.0]

k, done with you now. I stopped reading you right there and will be ignoring you from here on in.

Assuming that the NDP can caclulate royalty rates properly is not assuming that they can do anything. You can't argue what I say, you have to try and argue what you *wish* I said. No time for that level of childish dishonesty.

I thought you already promised to ignore me?

------

None the less, it is you that is picking and choosing what they new NDP Government might do or not do......as I've said numerous times, this type of confusion and mixed messages is already hurting the already struggling Albertian economy.

[Smallc]

PST and GST do not flow through a business the same way. PST, once charged, cannot be reimbursed, at least not in Manitoba. GST is charged and claimed until the final point of sale. Sometimes, it's even able to be claimed on things used within the business, not to be sold again. PST, not so much.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Smallc

[Claudius]

“The oil and gas industry in Canada works with governments of all political stripes at all levels of government, whether it’s federal, provincial or municipal,” said Jeff Gaulin from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).

“Obviously there is a lot of concern about what will the impacts be of a new government in Alberta on the industry. And we share those concerns,” he said. CAPP looks forward to sitting down with the new government to discuss those concerns, he said, namely how to protect jobs and increase investment in the oil sector.

“At the end of the day, I think the Alberta government and the oil and gas industry have the same interests. When our industry is strong, the Alberta economy is strong and the Alberta government is strong and working families are strong.”

But it’s likely far too soon to know what the ultimate effect of the NDP’s election will be on the economy, said David Allwright, dean of Bow Valley College’s Chiu School of Business. “Don’t ever try to predict the future based on the reaction the day after an election.”

Corporate tax increases will likely have some effect, he said, but it’s unlikely they will be as damaging as former premier Jim Prentice was predicting during the election campaign. “I don’t think a lot of organizations are going to be pulling the plug and abandoning Alberta,” he said.

“A small change in the corporate tax structure in relation to all of the other things that are going on, particularly the price of raw resources, that’s only one factor.”

TD Economics agrees. “We are not inclined to change our economic forecast based on yesterday’s election result. The most important driver of Alberta’s prospects remains the price of oil,” reads a report put out by the bank’s deputy chief economist Derek Burleton Wednesday afternoon.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1983741/how-the-economy-is-reacting-to-the-alberta-ndp-win/

[Derek 2.0]

Now Derek true many of your pts are valid. However don't you think price of houses going up was because interest rates are at rock bottom rates. People have gorged on debt. 20% is not normal. However 7-9% is normal. Interest rate varies inversely with home prices. At 20% that house is $50,000.00. @ 2.5% = $450,000.00. however Real Estate is falling in all places . Except Downtown Vancouver, Toronto. Combine low oil price, exodus of manufacturing in Canada. Does not look like any growth in GDP. America will be increasing rates this fall (Canada will follow), then yes there will be a correction. Like Ab political correction.

I'm not too worried about overall growth in the Canadian economy, though sluggish early this year, our economy is back to its historic point of being dragged by the US economy, as such, a projected growth rate of 2-2 1/2% by this Summer........despite some claims that Canada is too dependent on the energy sector, this is proven to be untrue with growth returning to manufacturing thanks in part to increased US demand and our decline in the CDN dollar in effect slowly cancelling out some losses felt in energy.......and of course now, a slight rebounding in energy prices, that I've hedged will continue to grow through Summer driving season.....

------

For Alberta itself, its dependent on what signals are put forth to industry by the new Government in the coming weeks and months........If I lived in Alberta, and was employed in the energy sector, I'd be squeezing my nickles so tight the beaver would be crapping out its spleen. I'd likely be looking into relocating to Saskatchewan shortly in hopes of beating the impending bum's rush.........

[Accountability Now]

I know that businesses who need to buy supplies or sell product complain about sales taxes. That's how they work.

Complete and utter nonsense. All companies buy supplies, all companies pay wages - which are affected by the tax rates, most companies are selling products which are affected by sales taxes. All of those things affect the fertility of the business environment.

The companies affected by PST are largely retail companies....ie companies that aren't going anywhere. The companies that we are talking about are the mobile ones. The ones that can and will pick up shop and move to where ever the taxation structure suits them best. Many of these oil companies are PST tax exempt even within the province. Of course any product sold outside of Canada is entirely PST exempt. As such your simple formulas don't apply.

Not seeing anything here that contradicts what I said except the part about unions determining the outcome of the election. Nonsense.

Perhaps its because you can't comprehend the points being made. The Wildrose was an option in the 2012 election until they spewed their mouths but more importantly until the teachers dangled the carrot to increase the wages of the unions. If you don't think that these public service and teachers unions carry a massive sway in this province then you are deluded.

BC and Saskatchewans tax rates are STILL higher then the proposed, so I don't see your point here.

Your point was about the business climate in 2003. I simply showed that Saskatchewan wasn't a factor in 2003. As for the proposed NDP rates, Alberta would be HIGHER than BC and the SAME as Sask.

Why not try looking at it without the mythical 20% interest rates? Fact is a house that was $300K 5 years ago is $500k today. They're over-valued, mostly because of the influx of people.

Because the 20% interest rates weren't mythical back then. Nor was the high unemployment. You can't cherry pick how you want it. I get the fact that you don't like a competitive and booming province where the only thing we have to bitch about is how good it is. Instead you wish that it would implode because if you can't have it good then you want everyone else to go down with you. Personally, I would benefit greatly from the province not doing well since the vast majority of my business is conducted outside this province and would benefit from such cost reductions. But at no point would I ever want to see Alberta or any province go back to the situation in the 80s. That is just stupid.

Really? "I predict another PC majority" is the stupidest thing I've read on this thread. Or maybe it was "sales taxes don't really affect businesses".

Nope...yours takes the cake by a landslide. A prediction is a prediction and based on the last election and the way the polls swung at the last minute, it wasn't a horrible prediction. And for the sales taxes, again....sales taxes are largely retail taxes for the end user. So yes...your comment is the stupidest thing by far.

[Accountability Now]

Kinda hard to do now that the list is down to 11.

How is this hard? Because you know your claim is wrong? Show me PLENTY of the PC candidates that you said were young and inexperienced. Just because they didn't win doesn't mean they didn't exist. Lets see it.

Why do I need to show that? I'm not countering that point. I merely pointed out that there were many young and inexperienced PC candidates. One guy was 22 and his claim to fame was making one(1) web site.

On this site you need to back up your claims and not just with you spewing more BS. You keep saying there were many young and inexperienced PC candidates. How is this possible to be inexperienced when 70 of 87 were INCUMBANTS. LOL.

Again...I have no problem with age itself but I do have a problem with a lack of experience and specifically with MLA's who showed little interest in attaining the seat but were thrown in just to fill the riding. I showed examples of this with the NDP so that is why I want your examples to do the same.

Of course, I understand if you can't.

How about this: maybe you can explain how the PC's can be so experienced and still miscalculate their own royalties.

I am curious about this. Why is it that I can only find this link on The Tyee or Thinkpol? No other major news source that I have seen is covering this story? Perhaps my Google skills are failing me?

With that said, is this along the lines of Rachel Notley leaving out 1Billion from her own budget? I mean the calculations are based on fluctuations and external numbers. Notley just did add things up right.

[Claudius]

On this site you need to back up your claims and not just with you spewing more BS. You keep saying there were many young and inexperienced PC candidates. How is this possible to be inexperienced when 70 of 87 were INCUMBANTS. LOL.

lol!! No. On this site you need to try and argue things the other person never said, rather than what they did say. The excuses I've seen people post on this site are hilarious. Last time I was here I made a point involving infrastructure spending on a per capita basis and some nob tried to tell me, "Yeah but Ontario has more people!". lol. If a person doesn't 't know what per capita means or signifies then there'sreally no point talking to them is there?

The last guy I spoke to on this thread thought he was making a super intelligent point by telling me, "You're just guessing". I literally chuckled for about 5 minutes over that. Yes I'm guessing. I'm guessing, he's guessing, Kevin O'Leary is guessing - everyone is guessing because no one knows for sure yet - they've been in office, officially, for 24 hours. There's really no point wasting time trying to have a sincere discussion with people like that.

So, no, I don't actually need to show you PC's who 'didn't really want to run' since that was never my contention. That was YOUR contention. So no that was BS you spewed and no, I'm not remotely responsible for proving it wrong. It was never my contention.

How is this hard? Because you know your claim is wrong? Show me PLENTY of the PC candidates that you said were young and inexperienced.

How is it hard? Because their profiles have magically disappeared from the records. Sure I could show you 10 and you'd say "that's not plenty". I could show you 20 and you'd say, "that's not plenty". That's how guys like you operate.

Again...I have no problem with age itself...

Really? That's what it seemed like to me. If I'm wrong fair enough but that's certianly what it sounded like.

I am curious about this. Why is it that I can only find this link on The Tyee or Thinkpol?

I'm curious as to why that's not enough? I can understand not trusting the Tyee all by itself, they're definately a source with a slant, but all you have to do is read where their infomation is coming from to get an idea of whether or not it's accurate:

"The Alberta government has failed to collect nearly $2.5 billion per year in resource royalties since 2009 due to a major calculation blunder, according to Jim Roy, a private royalty expert who advises governments around the world."

"As a consequence, the province has failed to collect $13 billion in the last five years, charges Roy, a former senior advisor on royalty policy for Alberta Energy."

"After a controversial royalty review, the first one in a decade, premier Ed Stelmach told Albertans that the new formulas for calculating royalties would increase Alberta's ''fair share'' of hydrocarbon profits by $2 billion a year, beginning in 2009.

At the time Jim Prentice, then federal industry minister, supported the changes proposed by Stelmach.

But instead of increasing royalties by $2 billion a year, Alberta's ''fair share'' plummeted due to bad forecasting and major flaws in how the province collects natural gas and bitumen royalties, Roy said."

Now if a former senior advisor on Royalty policy with the Alberta Government isn't enough for you then nothing will be, which kind of exposes your whole, "On this site we have to back up our claims", as the laughable BS it is. People can prove their claims all day and others can sit there with their hands over their ears, their eyes pressed shut shouting, "I-can't-hear-you! I-can't-hear-you!". Doesn't mean the claim wasn't backed up, it means the other person is too weak to accept it and move on with a different point.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Claudius

[Claudius]

Because the 20% interest rates weren't mythical back then

But they are now, so.....

If you don't think that these public service and teachers unions carry a massive sway in this province then you are deluded.

And if you think Alberta hasn't been ready to show the PC's the curb for 10 years you're deluded.

As for the proposed NDP rates, Alberta would be HIGHER than BC and the SAME as Sask.

Not once you factor the PST. Now we're arguing in circles again because I pointed out the PST and you choose to ignore it because that's the only way your math adds up.

[Accountability Now]

lol!! No. On this site you need to try and argue things the other person never said, rather than what they did say. I don't actually need to show you PC's who didn't really want to run since that was never my contention. That was YOUR contention. So no that was BS you spewed and no, I'm not remotely responsible for proving it wrong. It was never my contention

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Here....directly from the forum rules:

Research Your Post

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

Back up your claim that many of the PC candidates were young and inexperienced. Of course, your comment was a response to me saying the NDP had people in their election, particularily the person in my riding, that joined at the last minute and appear to not really want to have run in the first place. So if you want to respond to what I was actually saying then that is the context. Of course, I will be glad if you just backed up your comment too. Alright...lets see it.

How is it hard? Because their profiles have magically disappeared from the records. Sure I could show you 10 and you'd say "that's not plenty". I could show you 20 and you'd say, "that's not plenty". That's how guys like you operate.

Start with a few...lets say 5.

Really? That's what it seemed like to me. If I'm wrong fair enough but that's certianly what it sounded like.

Perhaps its because you cherry picked the thing that you wanted to talk about and didn't actually read the various posts.

I'm curious as to why that's not enough? I can understand not trusting the Tyee all by itself, they're definately a source with a slant, but all you have to do is read where their infomation is coming from to get an idea of whether or not it's accurate:

If the story was 'newsworthy' then it would be in the mainstream news. Journalistic integrity will sort through (or attempt to) stories that have agendas or are misusing information. When the main stream media picks up on this story then I will be intrigued. Until then, I equate this to something said in the comments section.

Now if a former senior advisor on Royalty policy with the Alberta Government isn't enough for you then nothing will be, which kind of exposes your whole, "On this site we have to back up our claims", as the laughable BS it is.

If the senior advisors comments were in fact true and there was nothing more to it then I would be certain that main stream media would pick up the story. I guess that's another thing you need to learn here. The source matters. You have nothing until you have a credible source.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Accountability Now

[Accountability Now]

But they are now, so.....

Now is NOT the 1980s. Your comments was that you would be willing to go back to the 1980s which had such interest rates. Its an all or nothing kind of statement. You can't say geez...I like the 1980s but not the high interest rates. Also take away high unemployment and while we're at it...let's get rid of the Oilers winning the cup. Sorry pal....it doesn't work that way.

And if you think Alberta hasn't been ready to show the PC's the curb for 10 years you're deluded.

All talk....NO action until this election. They were 'pissed' during the last election and nothing but another majority for the PCs. I guess since you're derailing this point to whether we want a PC government or not versus the idea that unions sway the vote then that means you've conceded that point. Thanks.

Not once you factor the PST. Now we're arguing in circles again because I pointed out the PST and you choose to ignore it because that's the only way your math adds up.

I told you already. Most of the industries we are concerned have a PST tax exemption. Also, the article you quoted was from the UofC Policy Planning....if Provincial Sales taxes were so bad then why did this same report suggest that Alberta should adopt a provincial sales tax? Hmmmm....

[Topaz]

So, since the Premier has resigned , who the next leader of the PC......think Harper would resign and go back to Alberta and run for leadership? Correct me if I'm wrong , but didn't he try that back in the 80's and lost??

[Claudius]

If the senior advisors comments were in fact true and there was nothing more to it then I would be certain that main stream media would pick up the story. I guess that's another thing you need to learn here. The source matters. You have nothing until you have a credible source.

Thanks for proving your claim "that on this site we need to back things up" is a load of BS. I give you the former senior advisor on Royalty policy with the Alberta Government telling you that the royalty calculations were wrong and you sit there babbling about how the source isn't good enough. It is. Period. You prove everything I said by rocking back and forth yelling, "Nah-uh. Is not! He must be lying even though I really haven't the foggiest notion one way or another"

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Here....directly from the forum rules:

Research Your Post

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

....and that's precisely what I did with the $13 billion royalty miscalculation claim, and what did you do? You ignored it and made a bunch of childish excuses. Do you ever tire of proving my point for me?

If the senior advisors comments were in fact true and there was nothing more to it then I would be certain that main stream media would pick up the story.

Really? Why? Because you say so? Here we are again with the goal posts being moved back. He's the senior policy advisor on royalties to the Alberta Government. It doesn't get more credible than that and here you are fumbling around with the most ridiculous excuses to simply ignore what he said. Again you only prove me correct: I could get God himself to tell you you're wrong and you'd just sit there going, "Nah-uh! Am not!"...Which makes your "we back up our claims around here" the joke it is. No, you IGNORE backed up claims.

So yeah you're the second child I'm done with. Ignored all the rest of your replies.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Claudius

[Claudius]

Late last week, it was also claimed by former Alberta Energy consultant Jim Roy that the province missed out on almost $13 billion in royalties since 2009 due to miscalculations.

http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/2015/05/04/we-wont-get-fooled-again

[Accountability Now]

Thanks for proving your claim "that on this site we need to back things up" is a load of BS. I give you the former senior advisor on Royalty policy with the Alberta Government telling you that the royalty calculations were wrong and you sit there babbling about how the source isn't good enough. It is. Period. You prove everything I said by rocking back and forth yelling, "Nah-uh. Is not! He must be lying even though I really haven't the foggiest notion one way or another"

I've asked you to back up your claim on the PCs inexperience and you have provided NOTHING. Now...you provide a claim that Alberta government miscalculated the royalties based on a claim made by a guy who USED to work in the review department in the early 1990s and was FIRED. Do you honestly think that he is speaking without bias or agenda. LOL. This is a beauty.

Again...when you can get a main stream media outlet writing and confirming this is true then I'm all ears.

So yeah you're the second child I'm done with. Ignored all the rest of your replies.

Yes...I saw that you were ignoring Derek. I guess it sucks when you too many people call you out on your poor claims.

[Accountability Now]

http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/2015/05/04/we-wont-get-fooled-again

An OPINION column????? LMFAO!!!! Even the column says this guy CLAIMS this happened. Do you know the difference between a CLAIM and a FACT....especially one coming from a disgruntled ex-employee. LOL This is great.

[Claudius]

You just keep proving my point. Thanks. :-)

Do you honestly think that he is speaking without bias or agenda.

You have a bias agenda too, most people do. The diffence is you were never a senior advisor on royalty policy and he has the (real) information to back his claims.

I guess it sucks when you too many people call you out on your poor claims.

No it sucks when someone demands you back up a claim with a link or website and then when you do they just start dancing around making up childish reasons to ignore it. You wanted a link. Now you want 4 or 5 from an organization you decide is "mainstream" media. Anyone can move goal posts. It's not hard. I suppose if "mainstream media" does pick up the story you'll just fall back to your, "he's just bias" defense.


Here is the man himself, Jim Roy with the Parkland institute with all the data one needs to back up the claims, data that you will doubtlessly ignore and refuse to even read:

Billions Forgone: The Decline in Alberta Oil and Gas Royalties

by Jim Roy

Alberta introduced new royalty formulas in 2009, expecting to collect an additional $2 billion per year in royalties. The result, however, was not what was expected. Instead of collecting an additional $10 billion over the following five years, total royalties collected went down by $13.5 billion. What caused this $23.5 billion difference between expectations and reality? Was it bad luck, bad management, or bad information?

Some say it was bad luck; the government points to the price and claims that nobody can control it. However, the average annual value of production was $83 billion in the five years before 2009 and $82 billion in the five years after; this is not an overall drop in price.

To see why the royalties Alberta collected have been $23.5 billion less than expected, we need to look at the individual formulas. As shown in Table 1, the big change was in gas royalties, which dropped by just over $5 billion per year following the 2009 change. Gas went from providing two-thirds of total royalties to providing only one-sixth of total royalties.

http://parklandinstitute.ca/research/summary/billions_forgone

I look forward to your dancing around and pretending you know more than him, further solidifying my point that proof is meaningless to you. Kinda makes you wonder why someone would bother spending hours collecting information you demand doesn't it?




It also sucks when someone demands you find a PC candidate who "wasn't really interested in running", when this is his claim and nothing to do with mine. I never claimed there was a PC candidate who "wasn't really interested in running".

It also sucks when everyone is guessing about the future and someone thinks they're making a point by saying, "You're just guessing!" lol.

It also sucks when you spend the time gathering links, like say some young PC candidates and you know full well the other personwill just say, "That's not young!" or "That's not 'plenty'". Why bother? Just fast forward and let them prance around thinking they've "won" something.

Kinda makes a rule that says you have to back up claims with a link useless or otherwise meaningless doesn't it?

It also sucks when the person you're spending time to reply to doesn't know what "per capita" means. Total waste of time. Or wasting time on someone who thinks that ego has nothing to do with motivation behind posting because everyone is "anonymous". lol. This happened last time.

So yeah I'll be ignoring you, and you can dance around with the last word and all, and when my email notification alerts me to a rational post, by an adult with the pride necessary to be honest, who has disagreement with something I've said or claimed I'll come back and answer them.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Claudius

[Prairieboy43]

Dude. I am going to take this one day at a time. Then pass judgement.