Jump to content

Alberta Election May 2015


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 380
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

The man was FIRED in 1993. I am quite certain that his bias is quite a bit larger than mine. As I have already said, although I see you have problems with reading, if this story was picked up by a main stream journalistic source and proven to be factual then I would be all ears. However, we only see this coming in from second rate sources and in the COMMENTS section on various sites. Do you honestly think that as long as its on the internet, its true? Would you like me to post some stuff about not landing on the moon or perhaps some great global warming data?

Now...speaking of agendas...your initial post said that you worked in the department of Alberta Energy. Worked being past tense....did you get canned too? Maybe you're buddies with Jim Roy? Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder too?

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.

Yes... I have found it frustrating that you won't back up your claim about the PCs not having experience and now are dancing around it by saying the data is gone. That is very frustrating.

Of course....your claim from Jim Roy is so laced with bias that it isn't even a point at all....hence the reason why no one other than second/third rate news sources are even talking about it.

Here's another note from the forum rules because apparently you need the help:

Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument.

Sufficient meaning enough or adequate. Your source from the Tyee with an obviously biased disgruntled ex employee's claim is not sufficient.

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.

You haven't come close to doing that. All you have done is spewed your opinion and continued to whine about it after I asked you back it up. I even quantified it for you....I said five candidates will do. But...keep that head in the sand where it belongs.

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.

What in fact you are looking for is someone who will just blindly agree with all the BS that you spew. Unfortunately MLW is not the place for that. I could care less if you put me on ignore or respond or dance around every citation request that has been asked of you. I enjoy a good debate but that is just something you clearly can't provide....since debates are based on facts and credible sources. Keep peering through the comments section....that should help you sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had mentioned before about Notley over promising on her election campaign with the thought that she didn't thing she would get it. Today

Rachel Notley knew a week before voting day that she was going to shatter the Progressive Conservative dynasty and become Alberta's 17th premier—and it hit her like a punch in the stomach.

She was in a hotel room that night on the campaign trail in Calgary or Lethbridge — she doesn't remember where — when she saw a new poll that put her NDP team well out in front.

It wasn't one of those angry-person punch-button polls, but one that was expansive and credible.

Her advisers had handed it to her hours earlier, but only now did she have time to analyse it.

And there it was, shining through lines of impersonal data: she was going to win.

"I suddenly realize that this could happen," said Notley in an interview with The Canadian Press.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/rachel-notley-says-it-hit-her-a-week-before-election-that-she-d-be-premier-1.3068407

I have to wonder how much of her platform was factual (meaning she knew she could do it) and how much was just pandering to the crowd with the comfort that she was never going to get in and thus wouldn't have to deliver.

I'm not saying this because I think she will pull back on promises but you would have to think that the team's thought process probably had to change from the start to the finish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago Ed Stelmach talked about reviewing royalties and the Calgary oil-money wing of the party mutinied against it. If the oil barons had listened to him at the time they could have had input into the process with a friendly government. It's their own short-sighted thinking that got the PCs thrown out of office and replaced with a government that isn't beholden to the oil companies.

They dun goofed.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the oil barons had listened to him at the time they could have had input into the process with a friendly government.

Yeeeep. Someone's going to break. We pushed back against the taxes, and the oil companies do the same. We have to be braver. We have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but we have huge wait times in hospitals and roads that would embarrass Zimbabwe. That oil is worth more than just, "a job".

Edited by Claudius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man was FIRED in 1993. I am quite certain that his bias is quite a bit larger than mine. As I have already said, although I see you have problems with reading, if this story was picked up by a main stream journalistic source and proven to be factual then I would be all ears.

(sigh) The notion he was fired or that mainstream media hasn't run the story is 100% irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy actually.

The guy presented his case using facts, figures and data. Facts, figures and data you didn't even bother to read. If you can find something wrong with those with those figures, showing that they don't add up the way he claims they do, then you would have a counter-point.

Claiming those facts, figures and data don't add up because he's bias or because he was fired or because mainstream media hasn't run the story is about as relevant as claiming he's wrong because he's a Pisces. Either 2 + 2 = 4 or it doesn't. Claiming the math teacher is bias and that somehow means that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 is mutally embarrassing.

Either you can demonstrate how his figures are incorrect, or you can't. There is no third option. There is no "opinion". There is no debate. Either the numbers are right, or they aren't and it doesn't matter if his intentions are pure as the driven snow, or he's Satan himself.

Until then, when discussing Alberta royalty rates, a senior advisor on Alberta Royalty rates for the government of Alberta outweighs the claims of a million internet ranters regardless of whether he was fired, promoted or anything else.

Edited by Claudius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(sigh) The notion he was fired or that mainstream media hasn't run the story is 100% irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy actually.

The guy presented his case using facts, figures and data. Facts, figures and data you didn't even bother to read. If you can find something wrong with those with those figures, showing that they don't add up the way he claims they do, then you would have a counter-point.

Claiming those facts, figures and data don't add up because he's bias or because he was fired or because mainstream media hasn't run the story is about as relevant as claiming he's wrong because he's a Pisces. Either 2 + 2 = 4 or it doesn't. Claiming the math teacher is bias and that's why those figure don't add up is mutually embarrassing.

Either you can demonstrate how his figures are incorrect, or you can't. There is no third option.

Until then, when discussing Alberta royalty rates, a senior advisor on Alberta Royalty rates outweighs the claims of a million internet ranters.

Wow...I guess I'm not on ignore.

I don't need to do the math. There are people out there who are much smarter at this than I am including people who are working on the royalty reviews and have been since 1992 when he last did his. I'm not saying he's wrong but no one is saying he is right, other than his co-Alberta Energy buddy on this site and a bunch of anti-conservative reports.

If his numbers are in fact true then main stream media would be all over it and since they are not then the logical fallacy is to believe there is nothing more to the story and that he is right. Journalists will always back away when they know there is more to the story.

Of course, since you are so gullible to believe everything you read on the internet, then may I recommend putting you in touch with a friend of mine who has milllions of dollars from the widow of a King in Africa. We just need your account number and a few other personal items to make the transfer! LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...I guess I'm not on ignore.

I don't need to the math

He doesn't need to do the math to prove the math is wrong. LOL.

I haven't seen something that stupid in print since I drove through Arkansas.

Thank you for admitting that your claim his figures are incorrect has no rational basis at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for admitting that your claim his figures are incorrect has no rational basis at all.

It's so sad to see the public education system has failed you so much. Your comprehension is absolutely horrible. Nowhere in any of my posts did I say the guy was wrong OR that he was right. I said he made a CLAIM that isnt being substantiated by any main stream news source and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. I beg you...to please find a spot where I have said that his figures are incorrect. Please!!!! Perhaps I should include some basic definitions for you in the future for the word CLAIM so that you don't get so easily confused.

At any point that you can provide a journalistic story from a mainstream source then I'll be all ears. Until then your buddy's claim belongs exactly where it sits (ie in third rate news sources and in the comments section)

But hey...dont spend time responding to someone you ignored three comments ago. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah blah. Your meek attempts to insult and your transparent bluffing only embarrass you further.


I refer you to your own blustering pompous demand from earlier:

On this site you need to back up your claims and not just with you spewing more BS.

Research Your Post

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

I have done this.
I have numerous links.
I have the expert testimony.
I have an entire essay of figures and data to prove the claim by the expert in question.


Let's review what you have:
Nothing.

-You have no links proving the laughable claim that if something isn't reported by the mainstream media, (or more accurately that none show up on the first page of a Google search), then somehow that proves that something is incorrect.

-You have no links proving - beyond a shadow of a doubt - Jim Roys bias to the extent he would lie and make up figures.

You have nothing. By your own definition I win, you lose.

Now everyone reading this knows that regardless of what you actually believe you will post back until the Second Coming with insults and bluster and bluffing and baseless assumptions hoping to save face in front of your imaginary audience. By all means have at it. Everyone knows internet cranks will argue that, "2 + 2 = banana" until the end of time no matter how much proof you rub their nose in. The argument is over. You lost and you know it, because as you say:


On this site you need to back up your claims and not just with you spewing more BS.

Edited by Claudius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, speaking of mainstream media, apparently it's not just Jim Roy but the Auditor General as well backing up his claim:

Exile in the Oilpatch: Alberta’s oil and gas royalty mess

"Roy doesn’t think Alberta has captured its fair share of oil and gas profits for a decade. ***This puts him in complete agreement with the auditor general, Fred Dunn, as well as members of the 2007 royalty review panel who concluded that Alberta had “the lowest government take” of almost any jurisdiction in the world.*** In fact Roy now calculates that Alberta captures somewhere between 30% and 40% of the profit available from oil and gas production instead of the province’s official target range of 50% to 75%. Nor does he think leaving billions on the table, as the auditor general has asserted, is good for industry or Alberta. “It’s not in industry’s interests for government policy to be stupid,” says Roy."

http://albertaventure.com/2008/09/exile-in-the-oilpatch-albertas-oil-and-gas-royalty-mess/


I suppose Alberta Venture Magazine will now be religated by yourself as "not mainstream media" for no better reason that it's convenient for you.


More interesting reading you can ignore...

"In May 2008 Auditor General Fred Dunn repeateed his charge that the Alberta government had failed to collect billions in royalties since 2001."

https://books.google.ca/books?id=MYesAAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PT7&lpg=RA1-PT7&dq=Jim+Roy+fired+royalties&source=bl&ots=BJSEzAckHD&sig=tfJTy-QRVlS15bQr9im9l8ldyT4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zkBRVZ-wMMiXNrnEgXA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Jim%20Roy%20fired%20royalties&f=false

I suppose again this is all invalid because you can just baselessly claim Fred Dunn the auditor General was just bias?

lol.

Edited by Claudius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/alberta-election-2015-ndp-sings-for-joy-harper-s-caucus-like-morgue-1.3063472

"It was more like a morgue. Someone said it was like it's Albertastan now," said Justice Minister Peter MacKay.[/i]

:/

Is he in jail yet?

...stan - is Pete referring to those countries with right wing dictators that the USA supports?

"the more things change, the more they stay the same"

The Pentagon's new Iraq propaganda

by John Brown

...

"This is a huge amount by soft-power standards. The state department expects to spend just $5.6m on public diplomacy in Iraq in fiscal 2008. The defence department money is to be distributed among four private contractors, including the Lincoln Group which, per arrangements with the Pentagon, covertly paid Iraqi newspapers to print articles composed by the US military but published as straight news items.

...

Critics point out that the defence department's funding is not transparent, which could result in its programmes losing credibility when target audiences find out where the money really comes from. This certainly turned out to be the case during the cold war, when the CIA was exposed as the covert financial supporter of intellectual magazines like Encounter that had been considered independent.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/27/us-iraq-propaganda-pentagon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah blah.

Yes...that has been the basis of your argument all along. But yet where is your answer when I clearly asked you to provide one spot....JUST ONE spot where I have said that I have said his numbers are not correct. Where??? Your constant deflection is appalling. The issue over royalty calculations is not easy and the calculations involve a firm understanding of not just numbers but also the ability to create incentives to keep and maintain the oil industry involved. Claims coming from either side do not paint the whole story.

I will await your response for my request.

I refer you to your own blustering pompous demand from earlier:

I have done this. A link from the Tyee and various links referring to the Tyee is all you have done

I have numerous links. All referencing the CLAIM made in the Tyee.

I have the expert testimony of a guy who was FIRED

I have an entire essay of figures and data to prove the claim by the expert in question. A so called expert would was fired and hasn't been involved in the the said royalty calculation since 1993

Of course you are missing the KEY part to proving links....they need to be of substance. Having a fired guy now reporting to the Tyee doesn't add up to much. I noticed most of the corroborating support is through Facebook, Twitter and other social media but still no main stream, credible source.

Your boy Jim Roy made this claim recently before the election. He also made it in 2008 before that election and in 2012 before that election. The guy has his opinion and constantly shares it right at election time to anyone who will listen. My point still stands....why is no one listening...or responding....or given a moments notice to this guy?

Let's review what you have:

Nothing.

I am not the one making the claim about Jim Roy...you are. I don't have to provide claims to disprove you especially when your claims are doing nothing to prove your point.

Now everyone reading this knows that regardless of what you actually believe you will post back until the Second Coming with insults and bluster and bluffing and baseless assumptions hoping to save face in front of your imaginary audience. By all means have at it.

So you say "everyone reading this" but then say "imaginery audience". Which is it? Can you please make a point that makes sense? I have no audience. I'm speaking only to you which seems to be a lost cause based on your poor comprehension.

Oh, speaking of mainstream media, apparently it's not just Jim Roy but the Auditor General as well backing up his claim:

http://albertaventure.com/2008/09/exile-in-the-oilpatch-albertas-oil-and-gas-royalty-mess/

Wow....you really don't understand what bias is do you. Did you happen to see who wrote this opinion article in Alberta Venture? Andrew Nikiforuk....the SAME guy who wrote the article in the Tyee. The exact same guy that interviewed your buddy Jim Roy. Anyone who calls the oil sands by the name Tar Sands has laid his cards on the table showing their obvious bias. Of course Nikiforuk went a step further and wrote a book called Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent.

More interesting reading you can ignore...

https://books.google.ca/books?id=MYesAAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PT7&lpg=RA1-PT7&dq=Jim+Roy+fired+royalties&source=bl&ots=BJSEzAckHD&sig=tfJTy-QRVlS15bQr9im9l8ldyT4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zkBRVZ-wMMiXNrnEgXA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Jim%20Roy%20fired%20royalties&f=false

I suppose again this is all invalid because you can just baselessly claim Fred Dunn the auditor General was just bias?

lol.

Oh...how awkward....here I am talking about the bias of Nikiforuk and his Tar Sands book and what do you do.....you post a link directly to that book. You certainly are a one trick pony aren't you.

As for Fred Dunn....he certainly felt the government could get more more money for its oil. That is no secret. Stelmach even agreed too which is why he tried to hike the rates However, the previous auditor general Peter Valentine seems to disagree that any miscalculation or unpaid royalties occurred (http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCAN0724944820080408?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)

"I could find no substance to support the claims made over the last year that over a billion dollars of royalties were not collected," he wrote in his report, entitled "Building Confidence."

Former Auditor General Peter Valentine, who authored the report, said on Monday the system for collecting economic rent from the oil and gas industry is "generally well-designed, if not always well-executed."

Valentine made 13 recommendations to bolster the accountability, processes and transparency of Alberta's royalty system, which gained worldwide energy-industry attention last autumn when Premier Ed Stelmach said his government would hike rates by as much as 20 percent a year.

Dunn was not viewed as an impartial audtior doing his job within his boundaries. As per below, they felt his involvement into policy matters was overstepping his boundaries. As such they started cutting him out of the loop which pissed him off and created a bias.

Pushback came quickly. A month after the report was released, a Tory-dominated legislature committee refused Dunn’s request for $20,000 to publish his report twice a year. In 2008 the same committee cut the AG’s budget, forcing Dunn to postpone or cancel about a third of 80 projects for the year. Then, for the first time ever, the government rejected a portion of the AG’s recommendations with the telltale phrase: “Policy matters are outside the purview of the Auditor General.” In 2009 many backbench MLAs refused to fill out Dunn’s annual satisfaction survey. Then, in April of this year, Speaker Ken Kowalski—supposedly a non-partisan officer of the legislature—circulated a report that called for restrictions on the independence of the Auditor General. The battle was finally out in the open, just as Dunn was preparing to retire.

The report, written by Ron Hicks and entitled “An Auditor General Who Is Both Independent and Accountable,” is a stark, almost alarmist critique of the AG office. The Auditor General has expanded his powers, it states, “to the point [he] now usurps the role of the elected members of the legislature.” The report carries considerable weight in government circles. Hicks was a highly respected senior civil servant whose career spanned 28 years. In his final four years (2004–2008) he was the top civil servant in the premier’s office, as deputy minister to cabinet. A politically sensitive post, this gave him an insider’s view of the relations between the AG and government.

Hicks, who retired in 2008, says he began to notice a growing hostility to the Auditor General inside government after 2006. “I saw the attitude changing in government and among MLAs,” he says. “It wasn’t helpful.” The AG wouldn’t be effective, he says, if the government took to ignoring most of his recommendations. In 2009, for instance, the government accepted only 78 per cent of the AG’s recommendations, down from almost 100 per cent in the previous year, notes Hicks, who wrote his report as part of his new position in the University of Alberta’s Western Centre for Economic Research.

https://albertaviews.ab.ca/2014/07/22/an-audit-too-far/

So the AG before Dunn said there was no issues with collecting the royalties....what about the AG after Dunn? The current AG and the guy who replaced Dunn is Merwan Saher, who was Dunn's right hand man for years. You would think that he would share Dunn's point of view on this however here's an article showing his toned down view on this:

Alberta's auditor general says the government has improved the way it tracks and reports billions of dollars in royalties from its oil and gas operations, but can do better.

A compliment with a bit of a critique in order to push the government to be better. This is probably more along the lines of what an AG should do. However this is the part I like the best:

But he said while performance measures have been improved for conventional oil and natural gas royalties, the same hasn't been done for the oilsands royalty regime.

Saher, however, admitted that determining whether both taxpayers and industry are getting value for money in the oilsands can be hard to pin down.

It's easier, he said in the report, to set measurable targets for conventional oil and gas operations because the figures can be compared to competing operations in other provinces.

So regardless of your opinion that the determination of royalties in the oil sands is EASY, I would have to say again that you are wrong. Also, Dunn was a bit extreme in his views about the royalties which is shown by the comments and actions of the AGs before and after him. But you keep sticking to that one trick pony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah. Didn't even bother to read it. Now or 1000 posts from now, Jim Roy, former Auditor General Fred Dunn and an entire review panel hired to specifically assess the situation, (who were also all fired with Jim Roy because they were telling Klien what he didn't want to hear), completely, inarguably silence your irrelevant nattering. That's enough for intelligent and honest adults. That you're not part of that demographic doesn't surprise me. I guess that's why your side lost the election. Intelligent Albertans prevailed.

Keep on babbling and embarrassing yourself.

Oh! Also thanks for proving what I said about evidence, expertise and reality having little affect on your species of perpetual arguer. Hopefully it might warn rational people away from this forum so they don't waste their valuable time. :-)

Edited by Claudius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah.

Continuing with this same argument hey? It hasn't got you anywhere thus far but keep trying.

That's enough for intelligent and honest adults.

Its not enough though...not even enough for main stream media to cover....just once!! You only hear about it in the Tyee from Nikiforuk or on social media. No where do you hear about this other than in the comments section but hey go ahead and believe what you want to believe.

I guess that's why your side lost the election. Intelligent Albertans prevailed.

LMFAO!!!! This is so priceless that I may even keep it on hand to quote it from now on. My side lost? If you had read any of my posts before your peanut gallery approach started you woud have seen my comments about the PC's needing to go. As such who is MY side? I still beleive the PCs had the correct platform but they needed to go based on Redford's antics and Prentice calling an early election and accpeting the WR defectors. The NDP pandered to the public which will certainly catch up to them when they realize there isn't enough in the pot for everyone to get what they want. So either a massive deficit is run (which WILL piss off everyone) or promises will be broken which will pissed off the pseudo NDP supporters will be pissed. Either way, I'm sure you will be NDP forever!

Oh! Also thanks for proving what I said about evidence, expertise and reality having little affect on your species of perpetual arguer. Hopefully it might warn rational people away from this forum so they don't waste their valuable time. :-)

Right...like about how you said twice that you would ignore me but only to continue jabbering away since you knew I beat you at this? Its tough losing but better luck next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read past this....

Its not enough though...not even enough for main stream media to cover....just once!!

LOL! Nonsense. Of course it's enough. It's not that it's "not enough", it's that it's not enough for a goal-post shifter. It's not that a Senior advisor on Royalties policy, the Auditor General and an entire review panel hired by Klein backing Jim up is not enough, it's that it's not enough for you. It never will be as I predicted and you keep proving.
However it`s plenty for anyone honest.

Now even Alberta Venture Magazine isn`t manistream enough for you. How convenient you think that you decide what's mainstream enough before you just move on to some other disengenuous reason to ignore reality. Children also think their little game of repeating, "But why Daddy? But why Daddy? But why Daddy?" over and over and never accepting the answer is clever and believe that somehow that'll get them the reality they want instead of the reality that is.

There's an entire society dedicated to the idea that the world is flat too. God, Shiva and Buddha could literally appear, part the clouds and tell them they're wrong, and they'd just sit there and say, "Nah-uh! Is not!". That all the evidence is not enough for them doesn't stop our satellites from orbiting the Earth.

No, AC, luckily that it's not enough for you is completely irrelevant. You're not the arbitrator of truth though it's plain you think you are. 9 experts now - Jim Roy, Fred Dunn the auditor general with all the information in front of him that you don't have, and a 7-member panel of others hired to assess the royalties all saying basically the same thing: Royalties are low, and the royalties we have, have been miscalculated costing us even more money.

Alberta could have had billions instead of cuts to health care and education, all of which surely led to unnecessary misery and likely even deaths, all because people just like you refuse to believe what is plainly, inarguably right in front of them and think they're being clever in doing it.


Meanwhile I'll post some more links from sources that "aren't good enough", for the honest people on the forum to profit from:

Alberta losing billions on energy royalties: auditor general

The government itself has identified roughly $1 billion per year in royalties that were owed by energy companies but were never collected, Dunn said, adding that the principles of transparency and accountability have not been followed when it comes to oil and gas royalties.

Dunn said that up until recently, Albertans have been forced to file freedom-of-information requests to get a clearer picture of whether the full value of royalties was being collected, and whether royalty rates were fair and competitive.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-losing-billions-on-energy-royalties-auditor-general-1.657629

Edited by Claudius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read past this....

Of course you didn't...its like I said....you have problems with comprehension

Meanwhile I'll post some more links from sources that "aren't good enough", for the honest people on the forum to profit from:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-losing-billions-on-energy-royalties-auditor-general-1.657629

Dunn again hey? I've already shown you the report issued by former AG Valentine that came out in response to this accusation from Dunn. Here, I'll post it AGAIN:

"I could find no substance to support the claims made over the last year that over a billion dollars of royalties were not collected," he wrote in his report, entitled "Building Confidence."

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCAN0724944820080408?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

The issue that you keep flopping on is that you think Alberta is actually owed this money as if someone forgot to collect it. That is not the case. Here's another article discussing this.

Valentine says he found "no substance to support the claims over the last year that over a billion dollars of royalties were not collected."

Many Albertans have the impression Dunn made that claim -- because the opposition says he did.

But Dunn actually argued the government could collect more money, without hurting the industry, by raising royalty rates.

That's very different from charging that the Tories failed to collect money owed under the established royalty regime.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=2233e4b4-9b9f-4cf0-b726-6ab8d23fcc51

If you want to say that we could have collected more money...that's one thing but saying we didn't collect on money that was owed to us is just wrong. Of course, everyone sees the money that oil companies make and think automatically that we should have more. The reality is these are businesses that make decisions to invest in this part of the world based on the given structure. You always risk them not investing further if they raise the royalties. I think I saw a report showing that at this time, Alberta was 11th out of 100 in the best places for oil companies to invest. After the 2009 royalty increase, we dropped to 44th. The ability to pin down exactly how much we should get is not easy. Its kind of like a game of roulette. You ask too much and the oil companies invest elsewhere. You ask too little and we aren't getting our fair share. Anyone in business gets the idea that sometimes when you bid jobs, you may end up leaving money on the table but you are happy that you got the bid and are making money. Its much better than not getting the bid and going out of business.

Again...the current AG Merwan Saher backs up this point by saying:

Saher, however, admitted that determining whether both taxpayers and industry are getting value for money in the oilsands can be hard to pin down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the money! What Director, Manager received a big raise or promo. Consider the fact that ESRD is a small area of government. Has 30 members in Edmonton. Yet has 15 Managers. Crazy!

Looks like the Alberta pc is still real busy despite the fact they lost the election.

Can't let others know what really bein going on hey?

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=11038800

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,752
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Dorai
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...