Energy East Causing Uproar

[Bob Macadoo]

I understand the reasons for taxation but it seems people like you don't make the the connection that it is your money that is being taxed, not the government's. Unless of course you are a communist where everything belongs to the government and you only get what is given to you. It's not taxation I object to, but the attitude that getting to keep what was yours in the first place is called a "subsidy". It may seem like a fine distinction to you but I think it is a fundamental difference.

If you get to keep more of your money than I simply b/c you've the resources to lobby (grift) for it......you can call it whatever you want.....it's a competitive advantage.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Bob Macadoo

[Wilber]

If you get to keep more of your money than I simply b/c you've the resources to lobby (grift) for it......you can call it whatever you want.....it's a competitive advantage.

If the whole industry is getting the same break, it is only a competitive advantage when it comes to competing with countries who don't give the same break. Deferred taxes can also work out to the advantage of government. If you have an RRSP, when you start making withdrawals on it, all the profits it made investing in equities will be taxed as income rather than the lower capital gains rate that would have been be applied to a cash account. This makes a TFSA the better option IMO. If course this government thinks so as well, that's why they have halved the contribution limit.

[dre]

I understand the reasons for taxation but it seems people like you don't make the the connection that it is your money that is being taxed, not the government's.

Taxes are supposed to be your contribution to funding the democratically elected government, and the programs it was was voted in to enact. The problem isn't tax rates, its preferential treatment.

If the government taxes your 100k income at %40, but it doesn't tax my 100k at all, then I'm being given a huge benefit and you aren't. To say its not a gift to me is silly... I get to enjoy the huge amount of services the government provides but I don't have to pay for them.

[bush_cheney2004]

...If the government taxes your 100k income at %40, but it doesn't tax my 100k at all, then I'm being given a huge benefit and you aren't. To say its not a gift to me is silly... I get to enjoy the huge amount of services the government provides but I don't have to pay for them.

Then logically consider the services as the gift, not reduced taxation. It's not the government's money...never has been.

[Wilber]

Taxes are supposed to be your contribution to funding the democratically elected government, and the programs it was was voted in to enact. The problem isn't tax rates, its preferential treatment.

If the government taxes your 100k income at %40, but it doesn't tax my 100k at all, then I'm being given a huge benefit and you aren't. To say its not a gift to me is silly... I get to enjoy the huge amount of services the government provides but I don't have to pay for them.

Preferential treatment is given all through the tax system. Graduated income tax is based on preferential treatment. Our tax system is rife with exemptions and credits for individuals. Any tax system is a balancing act between raising revenues without adversely affecting the economy by doing it. My point isn't that there is differential treatment, my point is that you aren't giving a gift by letting someone have what is already theirs.

[ReeferMadness]

Completely irrelevant since the vast majority of those subsidies are in countries like Iran or China. If you look at developed countries subsidies are non-existent.

Again, complete BS because such calculations pluck number out of a hat and do not take into account the lives saved by fossil fuels. If we did not have fossil fuels 4-6 billion of the people on earth would be dead or non-existent due to starvation and disease. Those that did survive would likely no give a crap about the environment because they were too busy trying to survive.

I don't bother replying to you much because your stuff isn't worth reading, much less debunking. Here's a case in point. If you actually read the IMF report, you'd see the subsidies apply to all countries. And it's mostly health costs and climate change - not the pre-tax subsidies you're talking about.

I didn't make my numbers up - they are IMF estimates. You've presented nothing in return but your own biased, poorly informed opinions. Go out and do some actual reading.

Fossil fuels have only increased human health and welfare and provided the wealth to allow humans to care about the natural world. There is no other source of power that could deliver those benefits to as many people.

There are lots of scientific studies out there that say that we can be moving much faster towards renewable power now. But they're all wasted on closed minds and people with a financial interest in fossil fuels.

So? Why do you think the government is entitled to anything if the people who are investing private money can't recover their the costs?

Yet royalties bring in billions to Alberta government each year which is billions more than any wind or solar project ever provided. Even the Alberta NDP has figured out that an industry that does not exist pays no royalties.

Alberta should have acted like a resource owner, not an industry cheerleader.

Imagine you wake up one day and discover you are sitting on one of the world's largest diamond mines. The only problem is it's higher cost and more difficult to produce than most. If you're smart, you would make smart deals with selected companies to extract the most value. You would use the money to build your own diamond mining company so that you could extract maximum value and extract diamonds in a way that had minimum effect on your land. In short, you would maximize your own value over the long run.

If you're stupid, short sighted and greedy, you would do what Alberta did - open up your land to anyone with money and let them pay for their startup costs with all the free diamonds they could carry. And then, after they paid for their capital costs with your diamonds, you would still let them keep most of the profits.

[dre]

my point is that you aren't giving a gift by letting someone have what is already theirs.

Yes you are. If the government taxes me, and not you, then all of the government services you benefit from (roads, bridges, police, healthcare, defense, etc) are gifts to you at my (and other taxpayers) expense.

[Wilber]

Yes you are. If the government taxes me, and not you, then all of the government services you benefit from (roads, bridges, police, healthcare, defense, etc) are gifts to you at my (and other taxpayers) expense.

Gee and I thought our tax system was intended to try and keep industries viable and give a break to less advantaged citizens. Turns out it is all about gifts.

[TimG]

Here's a case in point. If you actually read the IMF report, you'd see the subsidies apply to all countries. And it's mostly health costs and climate change - not the pre-tax subsidies you're talking about.

I did read the report. How do you think I know that the *real* subsidies (meaning the subsidies that involved money spent on fossil fuel development or sales) are almost all in developing countries? The fact that I read reports and think about what they are actually saying instead of parroting headlines suggest I am more informed than you.

The "health costs" also come largely from developing countries where they have not learn to control particulate emissions. However, if one is going to start adding up intangibles like "health costs" then one also has to add the health benefits provided by ready access to reasonably priced energy. Without accounting for both sides of the ledger such reports are not useful. I also don't consider any attribution studies that assign any costs to AGW to be credible because such studies always take normal variations in weather and blame them on CO2 which is not scientifically supportable at this time.

I didn't make my numbers up - they are IMF estimates.

Just because some analyst compiles a collection of figures that does not mean I have to accept the assumptions that are implicit in those numbers. I did read the report and I could give a detailed explanation of why I think their assumptions are unjustified but you are not interested in understanding the issues. You only want to preach your ideology.

There are lots of scientific studies out there that say that we can be moving much faster towards renewable power now. But they're all wasted on closed minds and people with a financial interest in fossil fuels.

I posted reasoned and logical counter arguments that illustrate how these so called studies are not credible. You are unable too respond to those arguments. Likely because you simply don't have the understanding of the issues necessary to respond. This means that means you are unqualified to determine what 'scientific papers' are plausible or not. You are just picking the papers that tell you want you want to hear. Edited March 6, 2016 by TimG

[poochy]

I don't bother replying to you much because your stuff isn't worth reading, much less debunking. Here's a case in point. If you actually read the IMF report, you'd see the subsidies apply to all countries. And it's mostly health costs and climate change - not the pre-tax subsidies you're talking about.

I didn't make my numbers up - they are IMF estimates. You've presented nothing in return but your own biased, poorly informed opinions. Go out and do some actual reading.

There are lots of scientific studies out there that say that we can be moving much faster towards renewable power now. But they're all wasted on closed minds and people with a financial interest in fossil fuels.

Alberta should have acted like a resource owner, not an industry cheerleader.

Imagine you wake up one day and discover you are sitting on one of the world's largest diamond mines. The only problem is it's higher cost and more difficult to produce than most. If you're smart, you would make smart deals with selected companies to extract the most value. You would use the money to build your own diamond mining company so that you could extract maximum value and extract diamonds in a way that had minimum effect on your land. In short, you would maximize your own value over the long run.

If you're stupid, short sighted and greedy, you would do what Alberta did - open up your land to anyone with money and let them pay for their startup costs with all the free diamonds they could carry. And then, after they paid for their capital costs with your diamonds, you would still let them keep most of the profits.

It's quite an experiencing reading your posts, a steady stream of ignorance and insults. It's almost as thought the oil sands haven't been under development by contemporary heavy industry for more than 50 years, and under much smaller scale development and experimentation for much longer than that. In fact you make it sound like just yesterday they found oil there, and squandered it the next 24 hrs, and of course none of what has been mined from the oil sands and from elsewhere in the province has had any positive effect on Alberta or the country, it's all been thrown away! It must be strange always being wrong and yet completely assured of your righteousness.

[ReeferMadness]

It's quite an experiencing reading your posts, a steady stream of ignorance and insults. It's almost as thought the oil sands haven't been under development by contemporary heavy industry for more than 50 years, and under much smaller scale development and experimentation for much longer than that. In fact you make it sound like just yesterday they found oil there, and squandered it the next 24 hrs, and of course none of what has been mined from the oil sands and from elsewhere in the province has had any positive effect on Alberta or the country, it's all been thrown away! It must be strange always being wrong and yet completely assured of your righteousness.

Thank you for your bitter drive-by smear. Next time, some actual content would be appreciated.

Alberta didn't throw it away, they gave it away - to the oil companies.The great giveaway started under King Ralph. He lowered royalties to 1% on tar sands until capital costs were paid for. And even after the oil companies pay all their costs with essentially free oil, the rates are still very low.

Former Premier Peter Lougheed said much the same thing during an interview in 2006 - that royalties are too low and development too fast. Would you like to do a drive-by smear on him as well?

[poochy]

Thank you for your bitter drive-by smear. Next time, some actual content would be appreciated.

Alberta didn't throw it away, they gave it away - to the oil companies.The great giveaway started under King Ralph. He lowered royalties to 1% on tar sands until capital costs were paid for. And even after the oil companies pay all their costs with essentially free oil, the rates are still very low.

Former Premier Peter Lougheed said much the same thing during an interview in 2006 - that royalties are too low and development too fast. Would you like to do a drive-by smear on him as well?

Your 'concern' for Alberta is noted, except that's not what you're all about, everything other than you honestly saying you are simply anti oil is a smoke screen for what your real agenda is, it's a lie.

Toxic sludge, fossil fuel addicts, Fossil fuels apologists, industry cheerleaders, scraping tar, Alberta's finest sludge, the eggs in one basket fallacy, reckless development fallacy, and many more, plus piles of insults to go along with the eco marxist buzz words that are used in place of intelligent debate that you can't provide. But you're the fringe, and come to think of it, im not even supposed to engage you, im supposed to accept that your indefensible opinions can't really be challenged because it isn't possible to debate with someone who just makes it up wherever they need to and throws out insults wherever they can't.

[ReeferMadness]

Your 'concern' for Alberta is noted, except that's not what you're all about, everything other than you honestly saying you are simply anti oil is a smoke screen for what your real agenda is, it's a lie.

I lived a long time in Alberta and I am angry about what has happened there. I really don't give a flying crap what you think of me or what accusations you care to level. You don't know me - you just don't like what I have to say. Too bad.

Toxic sludge, fossil fuel addicts, Fossil fuels apologists, industry cheerleaders, scraping tar, Alberta's finest sludge, the eggs in one basket fallacy, reckless development fallacy, and many more, plus piles of insults to go along with the eco marxist buzz words that are used in place of intelligent debate that you can't provide.

I express my views in strong terms. If you don't like it, move on. I also back up my views with a lot of facts and links. You whine and snivel about my posts but I notice that you don't dispute the fact that Klein lowered the royalty rates to 1% to allow the industry to pay off their capital costs with oil that was essentially free. Or that Peter Lougheed was very critical about what Klein did.

But you're the fringe, and come to think of it, im not even supposed to engage you, im supposed to accept that your indefensible opinions can't really be challenged because it isn't possible to debate with someone who just makes it up wherever they need to and throws out insults wherever they can't.

There's a term for what you're doing - it's called projection.

[Accountability Now]

Former Premier Peter Lougheed said much the same thing during an interview in 2006 - that royalties are too low and development too fast. Would you like to do a drive-by smear on him as well?

Peter Lougheed was in office until 1985. Is it possible that anything changed from 2006 since the time he left office? I'll give you a hint....it has something to do with competition.

[overthere]

Thank you for your bitter drive-by smear. Next time, some actual content would be appreciated.

Alberta didn't throw it away, they gave it away - to the oil companies.The great giveaway started under King Ralph. He lowered royalties to 1% on tar sands until capital costs were paid for. And even after the oil companies pay all their costs with essentially free oil, the rates are still very low.

Former Premier Peter Lougheed said much the same thing during an interview in 2006 - that royalties are too low and development too fast. Would you like to do a drive-by smear on him as well?

The depth and breath of your ignorance is comprehensive.

Perhaps you could spend a few minutes reading about how the oilsands were actually funded and developed in the 60s and 70s, and get back to us with the odd coherent, factual snippet.

Yes, it was the 60s saw GCOS (now Suncor) and the 70s saw Syncrude financed and built. Guess who was the Premier for nearly all that development, guess who established the royalty regime you abhor? Start there. I'll wait.

[ReeferMadness]

The depth and breath of your ignorance is comprehensive.

I love it when you guys start off like this - it means that me challenging your right wing mantras is getting under your skin.

Perhaps you could spend a few minutes reading about how the oilsands were actually funded and developed in the 60s and 70s, and get back to us with the odd coherent, factual snippet.

Yes, it was the 60s saw GCOS (now Suncor) and the 70s saw Syncrude financed and built. Guess who was the Premier for nearly all that development, guess who established the royalty regime you abhor? Start there. I'll wait.

Prior to King Ralph, royalties were negotiated on a case by case basis, recognizing that, at the time, the tar sands were economically marginal because the technology was new. Lougheed wanted to manage the tar sands development carefully as an asset of the people. Lougheed did work with the industry but he was an advocate of a 'one project at a time' strategy.

It was King Ralph who slashed the rate to 1% in the 90's and opened up the tar sands to an all comers approach. Of course, Klein was so clueless, that, during his drunken stupor when he was berating homeless people in a shelter he didn't know that some of them actually had full time jobs but couldn't afford to live on his minimum wage. So, Klein, being completely out of touch, couldn't be expected to understand or sympathize with the damage that his gold-rush mentality was causing to low wage earners in the province. And it was exactly this gold-rush mentality that Lougheed was criticizing.

I wouldn't agree with Lougheed on everything but he was a far smarter and far wiser man than Klein could ever have hoped to be. Alberta lost its marbles when they voted Klein in. And all of Canada paid the price.

And thanks for your condescending comments. They reflect well on you.

[poochy]

I love it when you guys start off like this - it means that me challenging your right wing mantras is getting under your skin.

No, it means the forum rules and moderation team protect you and don't allow us to tell you what the real problem is,of course this protection is just a reflection of what you have been given in society as well, otherwise you wouldn't be here embarrassing yourself on such a regular basis. But go ahead, keep believing in your righteousness, white knight, meanwhile your ignorance, and willingness to spread it insults all of us daily.

Thing is, we have oil, we need oil, we are going to keep taking it out of the ground, those are the facts. So no matter how much you squawk about it, even if ten years from now the world is a shambles because of it, your correctness or lack thereof will make absolutely no difference. O of course you can claim white knight status, if that makes you feel better, but nothing you have ever said or will say on the subject will ever matter, you believe in fantasy. This pipeline makes sense in the real world, the world you believe in doesn't and will not exist, maybe that sucks, but no doubt many, ah, people, thought the same when they realized their favorite fairy tales just weren't real, and never were. But I guess some people just don't stop believing.

Edited March 10, 2016 by poochy

[overthere]

I love it when you guys start off like this - it means that me challenging your right wing mantras is getting under your skin.

Prior to King Ralph, royalties were negotiated on a case by case basis, recognizing that, at the time, the tar sands were economically marginal because the technology was new. Lougheed wanted to manage the tar sands development carefully as an asset of the people. Lougheed did work with the industry but he was an advocate of a 'one project at a time' strategy.

It was King Ralph who slashed the rate to 1% in the 90's and opened up the tar sands to an all comers approach. Of course, Klein was so clueless, that, during his drunken stupor when he was berating homeless people in a shelter he didn't know that some of them actually had full time jobs but couldn't afford to live on his minimum wage. So, Klein, being completely out of touch, couldn't be expected to understand or sympathize with the damage that his gold-rush mentality was causing to low wage earners in the province. And it was exactly this gold-rush mentality that Lougheed was criticizing.

I wouldn't agree with Lougheed on everything but he was a far smarter and far wiser man than Klein could ever have hoped to be. Alberta lost its marbles when they voted Klein in. And all of Canada paid the price.

And thanks for your condescending comments. They reflect well on you.

Factually wrong. Syncrude was funded by a consortium of private and government money, a deal brokered by Lougheed. Alberta, Ontario and Ottawa were major investors. They all lost money. Brokered by Lougheed. The entire project was cost plus, a ridiculous gambit brokered by Lougheed that meant the builder (Bechtel Corporation) has every incentive to keep jacking the price up, so they did. It ended up about 300% over budget. The rape was so thorough and blatant that Bechtel did no major work in Canada for decades after. Brokered by... Lougheed.

The private sector investors had no time limit to get the plant up and running, and could tak their sweet time stringing out the period over which the construction capital was amortized and they could skim 'operating costs' . There were no royalties collected for decades. The private investors were placed in a 'impossible to lose' situation by.... sing along with me... your hero Lougheed. Yes, I get that Lougheed was handsome and well spoken, but as a business negotiator he let Alberta get raped. He did even worse when 'negotiating; with Trudeau Senior, when AB again took it hard up the Hershey Highway- on Lougheeds watch again in the early 80s..

[jacee]

Well well well ... The military now weighs in on Energy East!

canadian-military-official-fears-energy-east-pipeline-will-lead-to-epic-disaster

Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) has serious concerns that a major pipeline project proposed by Calgary-based energy company TransCanada Corp. will lead to a "disaster of epic proportions," reported Radio-Canada on Tuesday, based on a series of internal emails.

The Department also doubts whether the company has the capacity to clean up in the event of a disaster, the French-language public broadcaster reported.

The report noted that the pipeline's proposed route would go near a half dozen Canadian Forces bases as well as cutting right through a base in Petawawa, to the northwest of Ottawa. But the emails, obtained by Radio-Canada through federal access to information legislation, indicated that the DND officials were having trouble getting answers from the company in response to questions

The concerns raised by the military add on to other concerns raised by environmentalists, First Nations leaders and dozens of mayors along the pipeline's proposed 4,500 kilometre route.

Oh yes, and the NEB has been engaging in totally inappropriate private consultations about Energy East with business leaders (including Jean Cha rest)

... and then lied about it.

When exposed, they had to come clean:

not-only-charest-energy-east-panel-held-private-meetings-quebec-business-leaders

The NEB, a federal court and law enforcement agency, is not supposed to engage in these types of discussions to avoid compromising the integrity and fairness of federal hearings.

The bombshell revelations come from internal emails and notes released by the NEB this week that prompted it to apologize for making false and misleading statements in July about the meetings.

Hmmm ... pipeline down the tube?

.

[poochy]

The military didn't weigh in, a local officer on one base made inquiries, and the tone suggests they are against this project for personal reasons.

"disaster of epic proportions to the environment, the economy and society."

That is not something someone would write from a purely professional or military point of view, it's the sort of ridiculous hyperbole that we see from the far left anti pipeline/anti oil crowd. It's meaningless.

[jacee]

That's a side issue.

The real issue is the NEB colluding with private interests:

lawyer-demands-public-inquiry-reassignment-neb-management-over-charest-affair

The letter makes seven demands, including calls for the temporary reassignment of all senior officials associated with the Energy East pipeline controversy, starting with the federal regulator's chairman and chief executive, Peter Watson.

The demands were prompted by revelations made last week by a National Observer investigation into a private meeting held in January 2015 between several NEB representatives and former Quebec premier Jean Charest, who was working for Calgary-based pipeline operator TransCanada Corp. at the time.

The legal letter was sent by Dominique Neuman, a lawyer representing two Quebec advocacy groups that are intervening in the ongoing hearings into the Energy East pipeline project: Stratégie Énergétiques and the Association Québécoise de la Lutte contre la Pollution Atmosphérique (AQPLA).

If accepted, the demands, sent to the NEB's secretary, Sheri Young, would target senior management at the Calgary-based regulator while suspending federal hearings that formally got under way this week in Saint John, New Brunswick on TransCanadas proposed Energy East pipeline.

Oops! Caught!

.

[taxme]

Well well well ... The military now weighs in on Energy East!

canadian-military-official-fears-energy-east-pipeline-will-lead-to-epic-disaster

Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) has serious concerns that a major pipeline project proposed by Calgary-based energy company TransCanada Corp. will lead to a "disaster of epic proportions," reported Radio-Canada on Tuesday, based on a series of internal emails.

The Department also doubts whether the company has the capacity to clean up in the event of a disaster, the French-language public broadcaster reported.

The report noted that the pipeline's proposed route would go near a half dozen Canadian Forces bases as well as cutting right through a base in Petawawa, to the northwest of Ottawa. But the emails, obtained by Radio-Canada through federal access to information legislation, indicated that the DND officials were having trouble getting answers from the company in response to questions

The concerns raised by the military add on to other concerns raised by environmentalists, First Nations leaders and dozens of mayors along the pipeline's proposed 4,500 kilometre route.

Oh yes, and the NEB has been engaging in totally inappropriate private consultations about Energy East with business leaders (including Jean Cha rest)

... and then lied about it.

When exposed, they had to come clean:

not-only-charest-energy-east-panel-held-private-meetings-quebec-business-leaders

The NEB, a federal court and law enforcement agency, is not supposed to engage in these types of discussions to avoid compromising the integrity and fairness of federal hearings.

The bombshell revelations come from internal emails and notes released by the NEB this week that prompted it to apologize for making false and misleading statements in July about the meetings.

Hmmm ... pipeline down the tube?

.

Alright then. Let's just get rid of all technology altogether and everything that we know or use, and give in to the environmental whackos and Indians and what they want which is to send us all back to the good old ice age days of living in tents and shacks and living off the land.

The question that needs to be asked here is if we want Canadian oil or foreign oil? By buying foreign oil Canadians get to support regimes that kill their opponents, deprive women and gays of rights and who will kill those gays or use Canadian oil, and help Canadians to fine work, and not support those regimes that we cannot and will not ever accept here. I really have to ask myself as to whether some Canadians are allowed and fit to vote.

[jacee]

Alright then. Let's just get rid of all technology altogether and everything that we know or use, and give in to the environmental whackos and Indians and what they want which is to send us all back to the good old ice age days of living in tents and shacks and living off the land.

The question that needs to be asked here is if we want Canadian oil or foreign oil?

The question is oil or renewable energy.

Try to keep up with the technology, eh?!

.

[?Impact]

environmental whackos and Indians

....

The question that needs to be asked here is if we want Canadian oil or foreign oil?

Oh boy, I hope there is a life guard in the deep end.

...

What does Energy East (to China) have to do with your question?

[poochy]

Oh boy, I hope there is a life guard in the deep end.

...

What does Energy East (to China) have to do with your question?

Yep, its all for China, or that's just another lie.