AB won't send energy windfall to rest of Canada

[Montgomery Burns]

CALGARY (CP) - Alberta Premier Ralph Klein says the rest of Canada can forget about getting an extra slice of the province's energy windfall.

Klein dismissed a poll that suggested Canadians outside his oil-rich province want a share of the wealth being generated by soaring energy prices.

The situation is no different now than it was in the boom of 1980, he said.

"The rest of Canada was saying the same thing then: 'Give me, give me, give me,'" the premier said Friday. "Then the price of oil went down and the rest of Canada was wringing their hands in glee saying, 'You deserved it.'"

The leftwing/socialist/welfare mantra: Give me, give me, give me.

Klein noted no one came to Alberta's aid once the oil boom collapsed and many were left bankrupt after the Trudeau era's national energy program.

Trudeau; a truly loathsome Prime Minister

"They asked us to share in the good times, but they didn't offer to share during the very, very bad times," he said.

Ralph Klein is obviously not progressive; he lacks that liberal "compassion".

Klein also said Alberta is being prudent with its unbudgeted surplus because oil prices can be highly volatile. That's despite a report released this week by the Alberta Energy and Utilities board that predicts crude oil prices will remain at or above $50 US a barrel through 2009.

Those greedy hard-working capitalists.

It also said Alberta's oil supply is expected to grow from 1.72 million barrels daily in 2004 to 2.8 million by 2014.

They're destroying the enviroment!

The premier rejected the prosperous projections. He said he believed analysts in 1980 who said oil would go to $60 a barrel at the time.

"And what happened? It went plummeting down. It went down so fast it was a severe shock."

And then you were unable to fund Canada's gun registry, Kyoto junk science, and taxpayer-funded, govt-run, unionized govt-worker indoctrination centres, unlimited taxpayer-funded abortions, etc.

[...]

Klein said Alberta already sends billions of dollars to Ottawa that is distributed to the rest of the country through equalization payments. It amounts to about $2,400 for every man, woman and child in the province.

Ralphie doeesn't seem to understand that to encourage entreprenuerialship, you must take from the entreprenuer and give to the unproductive.

That increases entreprenuership....in the Bizarro World of leftist/socialist land.

Ralph Klein warns socialist sh*t-sucking anal leeches to back off

[cybercoma]

Ralph Klein, HE SO CRAZY!

[August1991]

This may be interesting:

Oil revenues amounted to:

2003/04 $981 million

2004/05 $1.193 billion Q2 (Second Quarter Update)

Budget 2004 assumes that oil prices for fiscal year 2004-2005 will average $US26 bbl WTI (West Texas Intermediate). Q1 Update assumes US$34 bbl. Each US$1 rise or fall in the price of oil averaged over a full fiscal year results in a $65 million difference in budget revenues.

--

Natural Gas and by-product revenues amounted to:

2003/04 $5.450 billion

2004/05 $6.839 billion (Second Quarter Update)

Budget 2004 assumes that natural gas prices will average Cdn$4.20/Mcf in 2004/05 while the Q1 assumes prices will average $6.01/Mcf. Currently, each Cdn10-cent rise or fall in the price of natural gas averaged over a full fiscal year results in a $105 million difference in revenues.

Alberta government

This means that Alberta royalties on oil & gas together are running at about $8 billion annually.

In addition, current world oil prices are over US$55 which would put oil royalties about $1.2 billion higher. Current Canadian gas prices are around C$10/Mcf which would put gas royalties about $4 billion higher. That's a nice windfall.

Annual equalization payments to the eight receiving provinces are about $10 billion. I don't know if it's possible to break that sum down between Alberta and Ontario. Federal Dept Finance

Incidentally, transfer payment and royalty calculations are fraught with statistical nuance.

[Riverwind]

Klein said Alberta already sends billions of dollars to Ottawa that is distributed to the rest of the country through equalization payments. It amounts to about $2,400 for every man, woman and child in the province.

$2400/person works out to 7.7 billion. Total equalization is only 10 billion of which a large piece comes from Ontario. I suspect the $2400 is self serving fiction that is only loosely connected to reality.

I think the time has come for a nation wide 'move to alberta' campaign.

[cybercoma]

Klein said Alberta already sends billions of dollars to Ottawa that is distributed to the rest of the country through equalization payments. It amounts to about $2,400 for every man, woman and child in the province.

$2400/person works out to 7.7 billion. Total equalization is only 10 billion of which a large piece comes from Ontario. I suspect the $2400 is self serving fiction that is only loosely connected to reality.

I think the time has come for a nation wide 'move to alberta' campaign.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

did you take total population of Alberta, or working population?

[Riverwind]

did you take total population of Alberta, or working population?

The quote from Kline said:

It amounts to about $2,400 for every man, woman and child in the province.

So I used the total population.

[cybercoma]

Ralph Klein, HE SO CRAZY!

[mcqueen625]

I remember back to a time when our federal government decided that we needed to be in the oil business so they spent taxpayer's money on the formation of PetroCanada. Subsequent federal governments have since sold off this profitable company to private investors, but during the time that we did own it, I don't remember ever receiving a royalty cheque for my share of the profits from this taxpayer owned entity?

I do not blame Alberta for refusing to share their windfall with the rest of Canada. Why should they give money to a Province like Quebec that does not want to be part of Canada? Some say they really don't want to separate, but my question would then be, if they don't want to separate why then would they continue to send representation to Ottawa who's sole purpose is the break-up of Canada? The Bloc has one purpose only, to dismantle Canada from the inside out. They are attempting to do what the FLQ attempted to do by force, the difference is this way they do not even have to fire a weapon or commit more murders. The Bloc is just an offshoot from the FLQ and should be labelled as such.

[Bakunin]

If alberta get more money, then it will reflect in the equalization payments, soon enough alberta will be such rich that they will be the only province giving in eq.

Then if i was albertan, i seriously ask for a better canada representation system. I would stop being such foolish & nice and ask what albertan deserve, its share of power at the federal government. Because clearly, alberta doesn't depend on canada anymore.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I would stop being such foolish & nice and ask what albertan deserve, its share of power at the federal government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alberta has its share of power at the federal government. What some Albertans seem to want is more than thier share of power at the federal level. The illusion that this is otherwise so comes down to three factors: 1) an antiquidated FTPT voting system that greatly exagerates regional differences, 2) time zones running east to west, and 3) regional population.

[B. Max]

I remember back to a time when our federal government decided that we needed to be in the oil business so they spent taxpayer's money on the formation of PetroCanada. Subsequent federal governments have since sold off this profitable company to private investors, but during the time that we did own it, I don't remember ever receiving a royalty cheque for my share of the profits from this taxpayer owned entity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly, or did anyone see lower gas prices at petro can. It was rip off of taxpayers and in the end went a long way to reducing competion at the pumps to this day.

[err]

Trudeau; a truly loathsome Prime Minister

Moronic statements like this suit their author well.

And then you were unable to fund Canada's gun registry, Kyoto junk science, and taxpayer-funded, govt-run, unionized govt-worker indoctrination centres, unlimited taxpayer-funded abortions, etc. 

MORe ON Kyoto.. you obviously don't consult the real world before you pick and choose which version of reality that you wish to support.

Unlimited taxpayer-funded abortions... I thought you were against single mothers on social assistance... or was that another moron ???

Ralphie doeesn't seem to understand that to encourage entreprenuerialship, you must take from the entreprenuer and give to the unproductive.

That increases entreprenuership....in the Bizarro World of leftist/socialist land.

Your ridiculous straw-man arguments only hurt your right-wing causes... Perhaps if you had any intelligent, non-malicious comments, your might help your cause..

[plusgood]

Of course Alberta shouldn't have to share its revenue from higher oil prices. If Alberta's oil is to be shared then perhaps revenue from all industy should be spread equally between all provinces. Alberta is lucky to have oil within its territory just like Ontario is lucky to have its heavy-industry sector. Equalization payments are used to provide revenue for provinces which were unable to secure enough tax revenue from its population to provide for their programs. If Equalization is not working set up a First Ministers' Conference and negotiate a new formula for dividing wealth, but I do not think that raiding Alberta's oil wealth is an really acceptible option. What happens when Alberta's oil wealth is gone and Alberta is struggling, will Alberta be able to go after industries that are profitable in other provinces? It would set a precedent for a messy way of interprovince revenue sharing.

I think Canadians from other provinces should migrate into Alberta and take advantage of the jobs the oil industry has and is continueing to created.

On another note I think Alberta could be more responsible with its wealth and I agree with comments in the media that Ralph Klein's proposal to give all Albertans cheques is "intellectually bankrupt." For example, Alberta should consider using the money to invest in medical research, research that would benefit all Canadians. Or look into the number of issues that could use financial attention - schools, environment, affordible housing are the usual areas mentioned - this would show the rest of Canada that Alberta isn't just 'swimming in money.' Klein's perceived arrogence seems to make non-Albertans feel that Alberta has more money then it needs, but really there are plenty of areas in need of investment... Alberta just needs a more innovative government.

[Riverwind]

Of course Alberta shouldn't have to share its revenue from higher oil prices. If Alberta's oil is to be shared then perhaps revenue from all industy should be spread equally between all provinces.

In most countries revenues from oil resources go to the national gov't (including the US). It is an accident of confederation that gave Alberta exclusive control of these resources long before anyone knew how valuable the black stuff would be. That said, I am not in favour of giving the current federal gov't extra money because they have a rotten record of using extra money wisely.

I would also like to see an active campaign to get people to move to Alberta. Maybe it is something the Alberta gov't could sponser.

[kimmy]

In most countries revenues from oil resources go to the national gov't  (including the US). It is an accident of confederation that gave Alberta exclusive control of these resources long before anyone knew how valuable the black stuff would be.

An accident? Seems to me that the rule is there because it was intended to be. I believe August has written that Upper Canada insisted on provincial control of resources because they didn't want to share revenues from their newly discovered kerosene deposits with the other provinces. If that's the case, Alberta is simply carrying on a Canadian tradition. Recall that for a long time, Canada's Oil Capital was Sarnia, not Calgary. The scene on the back of the old $10 bill was Sarnia, not anywhere in Alberta. The system, as it was set forth, worked well for Ontario for a long time. Why is it an accident when it works to somebody else's benefit?

And if it was an accident in 1867, why did they repeat the accident again and again when Manitoba and BC and PEI joined? And again in 1930 when Alberta and Saskabush were finally granted control over their resources? Of course, in 1930 the prairies' natural resources were assumed to be a few coal pits, some salt licks, and that funny character in Turner Valley with the gasworks. Was the real accident that they underestimated the dollar value of what they were signing over?

That said, I am not in favour of giving the current federal gov't extra money because they have a rotten record of using extra money wisely.

Indeed.

I would also like to see an active campaign to get people to move to Alberta. Maybe it is something the Alberta gov't could sponser.

Perhaps. With so many employers desperate for workers, it could be a boost for industry in this province. I can't help thinking that an organized campaign to attract people from other provinces might be poorly received, though.

-kimmy

{arrr. avast!}

[Guest eureka]

I doubt that August suggested that, Kimmy. It could be do, though, since every now and again, August goes off the rails.

Natural resouces were just about wood and fish and coal that was to be found in every province. Nothing much more. It made sense for them to be administered locallynd to a degree, offset Quebec's advantage with seaports and customs revenues - those revenues were a major driving force behind separating provinces at Confederation.

[Black Dog]

It's nice to know that, in an uncertain world, we can always count on Ralph Klein to drag out PET's corpse to scare the children. Noone has sugested a raid on Alberta's piggy bank. Noone. Such a move would be political suicide and, as much as it pleases Albertans to think that the Liberals are evil kitten eaters who would put everyone with a 780 or 403 area code in slave labour camps if they could get away with it, the feds aren't stupid. If there's one thing amoral power mongers like Martin know, it's don't shit where you eat. And right now, Alberta is setting the table.

But nevermind that. Ralph needs a boogeyman, something to drag out to show the local yokels that he's a tough-talkin', take-no-shit kinda guy who's always looking out for the regular Joe. And what better bogeyman than the hoary ghost of the NEP, something Alberta children are warned about from the time we're in short pants ("If you don't eat your vegetables Trudeau will tax them away!"), but few can tell you what it was.

It's a tried and true routine and one that never fails to set the rubes atwitter and, most handily, draws the spotlight away from the provincial Tories' own utter lack of vision or leadership.

[B. Max]

I doubt that August suggested that, Kimmy. It could be do, though, since every now and again, August goes off the rails.

Natural resouces were just about wood and fish and coal that was to be found in every province. Nothing much more. It made sense for them to be administered locallynd to a degree, offset Quebec's advantage with seaports and customs revenues - those revenues were a major driving force behind separating provinces at Confederation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's simply not true. The transfer covered minerals, precious and base, and royalties from. In other words they belong to alberta lock stock and barrel.

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/...sh/ca_1930.html

1. In order that the Province may be in the same position as the original Provinces of Confederation are in virtue of section one hundred and nine of the Constitution Act, 1867, the interest of the Crown in all Crown lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom with the Province, and all sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall, from and after the coming into force of this agreement and subject as therein otherwise provided, belong to the Province, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the Crown in the same, and the said lands, mines, minerals and royalties shall be administered by the Province for the purposes thereof,

[August1991]

An accident?  Seems to me that the rule is there because it was intended to be. I believe August has written that Upper Canada insisted on provincial control of resources because they didn't want to share revenues from their newly discovered kerosene deposits with the other provinces. If that's the case, Alberta is simply carrying on a Canadian tradition.  Recall that for a long time, Canada's Oil Capital was Sarnia, not Calgary. The scene on the back of the old $10 bill was Sarnia, not anywhere in Alberta. The system, as it was set forth, worked well for Ontario for a long time.  Why is it an accident when it works to somebody else's benefit?

-kimmy

{arrr. avast!}

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is the link to the post about Petrolia and a thread about who owns Alberta's oil.

In that thread, it seems that I was arguing that Albertans were "wrong" to believe that it is "unfair" if non-Albertans get to free-load on Alberta's oil. By chance, Alberta has oil, by chance the BNA Act gives the Albertan government the royalties and by chance oil is expensive now. Who can say what is fair in that?

As to the 1850s Petrolia story, I have no evidence of its effect on Section 92 of the BNA Act of 1867 but it makes sense to me that Upper Canada was not about to share this wealth with Lower Canada or the other colonies. I think it is fair to say that oil (kerosene in fact) was the Internet of the 1850s and 1860s. Oil had made Rockefeller rich before 1867.

[Riverwind]

In that thread, it seems that I was arguing that Albertans were "wrong" to believe that it is "unfair" if non-Albertans get to free-load on Alberta's oil.  By chance, Alberta has oil, by chance the BNA Act gives the Albertan government the royalties and by chance oil is expensive now.  Who can say what is fair in that?

I agree that the rules in the BNA Act are clear and that we have to play by those rules. However, there is a big difference between saying that 'according to the rules of the game the government of Alberta gets to keep oil related revenues' and saying 'the oil is the birthright of Albertans'. The later is inflamatory rhetoric and also absurd since an Albertan is anyone who lives in the province at any particular time so if Alberta gets too rich we can all just move to Alberta.

The distiction between what is legal and what is fair comes out in the Churchill Falls power project. Quebec is screwing Newfoundland because of a dumb deal made 40 years ago. Legally, Quebec is entitled to claim that 'a deal is a deal', however, that does not mean the deal is fair. The same logic applies to the BNA Act signed 100+ years ago - a province of 3 million people may be legally entitled to all of the benefits of the oil found there, however, it is legimate to question whether it is fair.

[August1991]

The later is inflamatory rhetoric and also absurd since an Albertan is anyone who lives in the province at any particular time so if Alberta gets too rich we can all just move to Alberta.

I don't want to get lost here but if many people move to Alberta, they will just drive up land and house prices in Alberta. Any royalties will just be embodied in house prices and newcomers won't capture them.

I agree that the rules in the BNA Act are clear and that we have to play by those rules.

There is much good sense in what you say in that phrase. The rules may seem unfair but if we allow changes in the rules, the arguing, negotiation and litigation will never end.

The same logic applies to the BNA Act signed 100+ years ago - a province of 3 million people may be legally entitled to all of the benefits of the oil found there, however, it is legimate to question whether it is fair.

If you go looking for a universal definition of "fair", you will quickly come upon a contradiction or an arbitrary rule. IME, a person's definition of "fair" is often what benefits the person - although people usually have a patina of altruism to hide their crassness.

The distiction between what is legal and what is fair comes out in the Churchill Falls power project. Quebec is screwing Newfoundland because of a dumb deal made 40 years ago. Legally, Quebec is entitled to claim that 'a deal is a deal', however, that does not mean the deal is fair.

That is a classic case which deserves another thread. The only unfairness in Churchill Falls is that water running to the ocean is wasted power - as is happening now with the Lower Churchill. (There is enough power in the smallest Lower Churchill project to add 10% to the world supply of aluminium.)

You can read my thoughts on Churchill Falls here. In essence, if you own the land but I own the shovel, who owns the gold we dig up? IOW, if you have no way of getting your product to market, you basically have nothing.

If you are interested, there is something called the Coase theorem which applies in all these discussions. It is now an important legal principle.

[Guest eureka]

Is that differnt than what I wrote, BMax?

August, the Petrolia find was inconsequential in terms of revenue to the Province. It is a pity that it was not more significant because there would then have been a different allocation of ownerships at Confederation. The other provinces would have wanted a national ownership of resources and a sharing of benefits nationally.

There is no way that Churchill Falls is fair. Quebec took advantage of a jounalist playing politician. Where Quebec can get market price for the power, Newfoundland is stuck with the original. I believe NF gets about two million ( I haven't looked up the actual amount) while Quebec was earning $800 million - more now with the skyrocketing cost of electric power.

It was pure and simply blackmail. Newfoundland could not transmit its resource across Quebec unless Quebec got the Lion's share of the profits. In Law, it is called Unjust Enrichment.

How would Quebec like it if its products could not be trucked across Ontario for sale in other provinces without paying handsomely for the privilege?

[Riverwind]

I agree that the rules in the BNA Act are clear and that we have to play by those rules.

There is much good sense in what you say in that phrase. The rules may seem unfair but if we allow changes in the rules, the arguing, negotiation and litigation will never end.

You yourself have argued that the 'rules' of NAFTA are irrelevant and that Canada should just negotiate an agreement with the US on softwood. If the rules are 'negotiable' after the fact on NAFTA why shouldn't they be negotiable with the BNA act?

You must remember that the Federal gov't has any number of things it could do that would be strictly legal under the terms of the BNA act but would be viewed as 'unfair' by many people in Alberta. One could make the argument that Alberta govt would be better off negotiating a revenue sharing arrangement that allows it to control the moneys than to allow the Feds to start siphoning those monies through 'legal' back doors.

Rules are essential and should not be ignored without good reason, however, one should not insist that the rules must always be followed even in the face of gross 'unfairness'.

IME, a person's definition of "fair" is often what benefits the person - although people usually have a patina of altruism to hide their crassness.

I agree to a point, however, altruism is a huge part of human society. I would argue that society would collapse no one ever placed the good of the community ahead of their own. But that a topic for another thread.

In essence, if you own the land but I own the shovel, who owns the gold we dig up?  IOW, if you have no way of getting your product to market, you basically have nothing.

There is a principal of 'reasonableness' which always applies. If you have 1000 shovels that you never use and you refuse to loan one to your neighbor at 'reasonable' terms then you leave yourself open to retribution (i.e. your neighbor may 'steal' your shovels and your other neighbors will give their tacit approval).

[B. Max]

Is that differnt than what I wrote, BMax?

August, the Petrolia find was inconsequential in terms of revenue to the Province. It is a pity that it was not more significant because there would then have been a different allocation of ownerships at Confederation. The other provinces would have wanted a national ownership of resources and a sharing of benefits nationally.

There is no way that Churchill Falls is fair. Quebec took advantage of a jounalist playing politician. Where Quebec can get market price for the power, Newfoundland is stuck with the original. I believe NF gets about two million ( I haven't looked up the actual amount) while Quebec was earning $800 million - more now with the skyrocketing cost of electric power.

It was pure and simply blackmail. Newfoundland could not transmit its resource across Quebec unless Quebec got the Lion's share of the profits. In Law, it is called Unjust Enrichment.

How would Quebec like it if its products could not be trucked across Ontario for sale in other provinces without paying handsomely for the privilege?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, you suggested it didn't apply to oil. However it does. Even in section 92. Forestry is not a non renewable resourse.

Non-Renewable Natural Resources, Forestry Resources and Electrical Energ

Now it seems quite clear that ottawa is going to get their hands on some of this money in the form of a carbon tax under the kyoto farce. In other words a production tax. I'm not sure what alberta's response will be, or the oil companies for that matter. This will effectively shut in all low production wells or high input wells. The feds have said it won't cost the consumer anything. Of course they mean the Ont. consumer. Wrong, it will cost them big time. There are thousands of wells that have never been tied in, others that now need to be re piped. Pumpjacked and so on. A great deal of that material comes from Ont. Guess what won't be coming from Ont. This will start a recession across the country, as it did with the nep. The calls this time for alberta secession will not be ignored.

[Guest eureka]

No I did not. Now go to the blackboard and write out what I wrote ten times. Then recite it as far as you can remember. You may come to the point.