An Albertan adds up the numbers

[Shady]

"Not even in America"? LOL. Ever check how much corp. profit is stashed tax free offshore, or where Trump has his clothing line manufactured?

That's unfettered to you? The 70,000 pages of regulations in the national registry means nothing apparently because a company that makes money outside of the United States doesn't have it taxed within the United States. Good grief.

[Smallc]

The effects of the energy 'policy' of the current federal govt haven't been felt yet in the ROC. They will soon, as the gusher of cash diminishes it will be felt by everybody.

We all know there are going to be deficits. We've all known that for a while now.

Albertas knows there is little possibility of actual cooperation or reasonableness from Trudeau, Quebec or several other provinces.

Albertan's sound like a rather paranoid bunch.

It is not about thanking anybody, it is a matter of preservation of an important part of our economy.

Right - a part that doesn't have an indefinite future; at least not as it exists right now.

With the active discouragement of Trudeau at least twice in recent months, sorry three times, companies like Enbridge have already noted they are looking elsewhere to invest, and there is no lack of opportunity to make serious money in many parts of the world.

Active discouragement? You mean considering climate change in environmental assessments, and not prejudicing environmental assessments?

Their announcement last week mentioned US and Europe specifically.

And yet the US is the very reason Keystone XL doesn't exist. Good luck to them.

They aren't the only ones who are starting to see that the hostility of Candas poltical class to the energy ndustry is making investment here pointless and risky., Tansalta announced it won't be investing in any major electrical production in AB until the current AB regime decides what will be done about abandoned capital. That means electricity costs will follow Ontarios model of simply being too costly for industry to bother with. Too risky.... And that spreads like wildfire, and will, it is already well underway.

Oh wah, they can't build coal plants anymore - poor them.

Nationally, none of the Big Three auto makers are bothering to spend much in Canada, too expensive and now also too risky

Canada has lower corporate taxes, a pass through sales tax, and many credits. Add to that the lower dollar, and it's no longer certain what the big 3 will do. The problem for them was the high dollar. That problem has disappeared.

And if they continue to pack up, they won't be back soon. Our market is not big enough to roll the dice on, not for big mponey..

Such doom and gloom. Canada is actually supposed to be middle of the pack in growth for peer economies this year. The world is not a good place economically right now.

They want Canada, all of it, to recognize the situation and allow the industry, not the public purse, build infrastructure to get energy products to market worldwide. Pipelines, ports, LNG plants. Not 20 years from now. But now. Not for Alberta, for the country. It matters to all of us.

Environmental considerations be damned, right? Why even bother with the assessments?

The US did it, Australia did it, many countries have labour, business, government, everybody work together in their own interests. Not us.

You tell me the next time North Dakota and California agree, and get back to me.

As for Australia, they're not the best example at the moment.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's unfettered to you? The 70,000 pages of regulations in the national registry means nothing apparently because a company that makes money outside of the United States doesn't have it taxed within the United States. Good grief.

No, the big problem is that US tax loopholes allow major corps. in the US to make it appear as if profits where made offshore. That added up to nearly 2 trillion as of 2014. And it seems you conveniently ignored Trump hypocrisy. I know you like US right wing politicians, but, good grief.

[Shady]

No, the big problem is that US tax loopholes allow major corps. in the US to make it appear as if profits where made offshore. That added up to nearly 2 trillion as of 2014. And it seems you conveniently ignored Trump hypocrisy. I know you like US right wing politicians, but, good grief.

Which loop hole?

[bush_cheney2004]

As expected with most threads, there is no problem in Alberta or Canada that can't ultimately be blamed on the United States.

It's so much easier than actually cooperating and building something across provincial boundaries. Sunny Ways !

[On Guard for Thee]

Which loop hole?

The ones Apple, Microsoft, IBM, etc. use

[msj]

Sure...go for it. It won't stop the need for oil.

You mean the 99% that goes to the US? Is that a problem for you that we export to them?

Do you want to know where BC has its exports going to?

Oil is fungible so the price is what it is regardless if it is being paid by Canadians or Americans or anyone else. Hence my reference to a cartel (OPEC) that does it's best to maintain a high price.

Hence my reference for the need for energy diversification - create markets so that a wide variety of sources can satisfy demand. Over the long run this should lead to lower energy costs which is good for most people and most businesses.

Nowhere have I stated the end for oil.

It's not necessary to end our use of oil - all it will take is marginal increases in solar/wind and technological advancements to shift energy demand and supply to ensure consumers benefit.

Remember, for the vast majority of people energy is a cost that we would ideally not have to pay (or at least pay as little as possible).

Why is that you scream from the hilltops about democracy and about peoples ability to speak their minds yet you jump all over me for doing just that. I have never said that people, whether it Coderre or any other anti-pipeline person, not be able to say their peace. I have however stated that these same people need to be cognizant of all the factors involved and should realize consequences for the choices they make. I also want to know why you feel an argument should be one sided? Why am I not allowed to criticize what anti-pipeline people would say? Is that not my right? Or is it a matter of convenient rights for you?

Oh? Did I say that you don't have a right to speak you mind? WAS I SCREAMING? REALLY? pardon the snark, but really?

I probably think Coderre is as much of a jerk-hole as you do, btw so don't see any need for a difference of opinion on other matters to go into the nonsense you spout above.

Edited February 21, 2016 by msj

[Smallc]

I probably think Coderre is as much of a jerk-hole as you do

Who doesn't?

[Shady]

The ones Apple, Microsoft, IBM, etc. use

And which loop hole are you referring to specifically?

[On Guard for Thee]

And which loop hole are you referring to specifically?

Offshore offices can hide profits, even though acquired in the US , in offshore accounts and avoid paying US taxes. Quite simple if you have a broken tax system.

[bush_cheney2004]

*** This is a test ***

I think discussions about U.S. corps and tax liabilities is thread drift and a derail.

*** This is a test ***

[ReeferMadness]

Back to the OP.

It seems like a little history lesson is in order. Until the early 1990's oil royalties for tar sands projects were negotiated on a case by case basis. Then in what could only be described as the act of desperate madmen, the Alberta Conservative Party anointed Ralph Klein as premier of the province. Klein instituted the great Albertan oil giveaway - a deal to good to be true. Royalty rates for digging toxic sludge out of northeastern Alberta were set at 1% (basically free) until the capital costs were paid for.

Think about the implications. Essentially, oil companies get to pay for whatever the costs they sink into projects (plus interest!) with free oil. There is no incentive to be efficient, no incentive to develop other industries, no incentive to do anything besides dig up bitumen and ship it as fast as possible. Oh, of course, there was an incentive to game the system, which is exactly what the oil companies did.

This policy has led to a rapid development of the oil sands. It is worth noting that most projects expand in scope prior to project payout, ensuring that they remain at the lower 1% royalty level.

The Federal government sweetened an already incredibly good deal by offering ridiculous depreciation allowances to diggers of sludge.

The results could have been predicted. The resulting stampede of oil companies from around the world wanting to take advantage of free oil distorted Canada's economy, left Alberta vulnerable to the price of a single volatile commodity and caused wages to spike. Instead of treating the oil like a one-time bonus, Alberta built budgets predicated on ever-lasting oil revenues, eschewing sales taxes and implementing a flat tax. In an idiotic turn of events, although national oil companies from around the world (including China) were welcomed, due to an infantile over-reaction to the National Energy Program, Brian Mulroney's ill-considered (and politically motivated) sale of Petro-Canada ensured that Canada would not share in the wealth.

In 2006, former Premier Peter Lougheed said this

I was just up there on a trip, just helicoptering around, and it is just a moonscape. It is wrong in my judgment, a major wrong, and I keep trying to see who the beneficiaries are. Not the people in Red Deer, because everything they have got is costing more. It is not the people of the province, because they are not getting the royalty return that they should be getting, with $75 oil. So it is a major, major federal and provincial issue.

So, the result of two decades of mindless over-development is that the price of Alberta sludge is depressed to a point where oil companies can't even turn a profit when the oil is free. And the response from Alberta isn't a recognition that they have to develop the resource more intelligently, it's a demand to pipe the toxic sludge across Canada, irrespective of the fact that nobody knows how to properly clean it up when it spills.

Here is what Jeffrey Simpson with the Globe & Mail said about Alberta's governance:

Year after year, Albertans counted on the least reliable source of revenues – fossil fuel production – to give themselves low taxes and munificent public services. By doing so, they resisted each year putting aside chunks of those revenues from fossil fuels in the Heritage Fund. As a consequence, they kept little aside for tomorrow’s uncertainties, and spent extensively today – while keeping taxes low.

They rejected a sales tax, the most reliable source of government revenue. They drove down corporate taxes. They gave the oil and gas sector the lowest royalty rates around, according to the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. They gave themselves a low flat tax personal income tax system. And when times were really good, their premier – Ralph Klein in those days – cut them each $200 cheques to share in the good fortune.

[The_Squid]

Decades of poor fiscal management by Conservative governments have led to a sudden crisis after a few months of low oil prices. Sheer stupidity.

[Charles Anthony]

After having to moderate 3 separate lines of thread drift, I have decided to close this cluttered thread.

Try again. Anybody interested in continuing any and or all of the topics discussed in this thread is welcome to start a new thread but will be expected to put more effort into starting the discussion with a clear focus and a better title.