Alberta Threatens To Pull Out of Equalization

[Wilber]

I can remember my Alberta plates getting me the finger occasionally while driving in Ontario.

Are you sure it wasn't your driving ?

And do you realize that you're driving OUR cars ? ( Not really, but I'm using roughly the same logic that people use for natural resourced to manufactured goods produced in Ontario. I have never heard anybody here refer to the auto plants as 'our factories', but the time is coming when this will happen. )

It might of been the driving but I don't know how you offend someone going in the opposite direction on a straight road.

Why do I pay more for a car (before taxes) built in Ontario than someone in Seattle? At least you pay the same as someone in Seattle for Alberta's oil. You want a special price for another Province's products, be prepared to reciprocate.

[killjoy]

History for the people in Alberta begins with the people whom came out here, whatever that time was, and for my family it was the late 1800's and early 1900's, and all this so called help prior to 1947 you say Canada provided was token at best,

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...ams=A1SEC819745

Prairie drought, adverse price movements and foreign protective tendencies, as in the 1920-22 recession and the slump of 1929-33, were serious matters. Ottawa provided relief money, protected the provincial governments from bankruptcy, and tried through trade negotiations to improve the conditions for western exports (see OTTAWA AGREEMENTS). After the collapse of the co-operative wheat pools in 1929-30, Ottawa also supported the marketing of prairie wheat, although until the middle of WWII the farmers could market their wheat through private channels if they wished. Wartime prosperity helped western farmers pay off their debts. In BC, meanwhile, co-operative marketing increased for such goods as apples and peaches. But new manufacturing plants were slow to appear. By 1939 a Ford assembly plant near Vancouver supplied export markets in India and the Pacific, but when these markets vanished after 1939 the plant vanished too. WWII saw a rapid development of shipbuilding and aircraft construction on the West Coast, but after the war these industries dwindled or vanished.

The years after 1945 saw new resource-based development, rapid urbanization and dramatic increases in standards of living. The most striking new projects were in oil, gas, pipeline-building and potash, which transformed the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

And as far as Alberta's genesis with regards to immigration, well... Canada had from the onset til years after WWII has always needed to use propaganda and bribes to get them out here in the first place.

http://www.civilization.ca/educat/oracle/m...n/page02_e.html

"Early Immigration

In the meantime, the Canadian government began its push to settle the Prairies by introducing a new initiative aimed at attracting settlers. In 1872, the Dominion Lands Act was passed, granting 160 acres (647 497 m2) free to potential settlers so long as they met a number of conditions. These included building a dwelling, planting crops and living on the land for at least three years. Despite such incentives, a disappointingly low number of immigrants arrived before the late 1890s.

The largest group to take advantage of the opportunities the new region had to offer was from Ontario. After Confederation, Ontarians arrived in Manitoba in such large numbers that Winnipeg was often referred to, tongue in cheek, as Ontario West.

There were a number of groups from outside Canada that also came and settled together in the Prairie West prior to 1890. These included Mennonites and Jews from Russia, and the Mormons from America. These groups often arrived seeking varying degrees of ethnic, religious or ideological freedom, or to escape persecution. Their numbers, however, were small.

Competition with the United States

There were many reasons for Canada's limited success in attracting settlers. Among them was the fact that the American West still proved more appealing to the majority of potential immigrants. In fact, many of the immigrants who originally arrived in Western Canada during this period often eventually headed south into the United States. There they could take advantage of a more advanced economy and a more efficient transportation system.

Many immigrants also chose the American West because it had a superior international image at the time. While it was described as the frontier of golden opportunity, the Canadian West was often conversely portrayed as uninhabitable, cold and barren.

It was these negative stereotypes that the federal government, the Canadian Pacific Railway and groups of nationalist Canadians began to challenge. They distributed immigration propaganda at home and abroad that described the West as a Promised Land, an "earthly paradise" with fertile soil and "the healthiest climate" in the world. Who could resist such a place?"

Yeah. Canada's part in the creation of Alberta was token at best. Ok.

I stick by what I said. Alberta was a dirt poor homely prairie girl who no one wanted to dance with except for Daddy Canada. Now she's all rich and fanciful-like and she don't need the likes of Canada no more. She's got Texas.

.

[stamps]

I can remember my Alberta plates getting me the finger occasionally while driving in Ontario.

Are you sure it wasn't your driving ?

And do you realize that you're driving OUR cars ? ( Not really, but I'm using roughly the same logic that people use for natural resourced to manufactured goods produced in Ontario. I have never heard anybody here refer to the auto plants as 'our factories', but the time is coming when this will happen. )

It might of been the driving but I don't know how you offend someone going in the opposite direction on a straight road.

Why do I pay more for a car (before taxes) built in Ontario than someone in Seattle? At least you pay the same as someone in Seattle for Alberta's oil. You want a special price for another Province's products, be prepared to reciprocate.

Maybe Alberta could lure some auto makers to set-up shop here in Alberta, we're closer to China than eastern Canada, we have a business friendly enviroment, high standard of living, we're well situated in the fastest growing part if the continent.....

[stamps]

History for the people in Alberta begins with the people whom came out here, whatever that time was, and for my family it was the late 1800's and early 1900's, and all this so called help prior to 1947 you say Canada provided was token at best,

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...ams=A1SEC819745

Prairie drought, adverse price movements and foreign protective tendencies, as in the 1920-22 recession and the slump of 1929-33, were serious matters. Ottawa provided relief money, protected the provincial governments from bankruptcy, and tried through trade negotiations to improve the conditions for western exports (see OTTAWA AGREEMENTS). After the collapse of the co-operative wheat pools in 1929-30, Ottawa also supported the marketing of prairie wheat, although until the middle of WWII the farmers could market their wheat through private channels if they wished. Wartime prosperity helped western farmers pay off their debts. In BC, meanwhile, co-operative marketing increased for such goods as apples and peaches. But new manufacturing plants were slow to appear. By 1939 a Ford assembly plant near Vancouver supplied export markets in India and the Pacific, but when these markets vanished after 1939 the plant vanished too. WWII saw a rapid development of shipbuilding and aircraft construction on the West Coast, but after the war these industries dwindled or vanished.

The years after 1945 saw new resource-based development, rapid urbanization and dramatic increases in standards of living. The most striking new projects were in oil, gas, pipeline-building and potash, which transformed the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

And as far as Alberta's genesis with regards to immigration, well... Canada had from the onset til years after WWII has always needed to use propaganda and bribes to get them out here in the first place.

http://www.civilization.ca/educat/oracle/m...n/page02_e.html

"Early Immigration

In the meantime, the Canadian government began its push to settle the Prairies by introducing a new initiative aimed at attracting settlers. In 1872, the Dominion Lands Act was passed, granting 160 acres (647 497 m2) free to potential settlers so long as they met a number of conditions. These included building a dwelling, planting crops and living on the land for at least three years. Despite such incentives, a disappointingly low number of immigrants arrived before the late 1890s.

The largest group to take advantage of the opportunities the new region had to offer was from Ontario. After Confederation, Ontarians arrived in Manitoba in such large numbers that Winnipeg was often referred to, tongue in cheek, as Ontario West.

There were a number of groups from outside Canada that also came and settled together in the Prairie West prior to 1890. These included Mennonites and Jews from Russia, and the Mormons from America. These groups often arrived seeking varying degrees of ethnic, religious or ideological freedom, or to escape persecution. Their numbers, however, were small.

Competition with the United States

There were many reasons for Canada's limited success in attracting settlers. Among them was the fact that the American West still proved more appealing to the majority of potential immigrants. In fact, many of the immigrants who originally arrived in Western Canada during this period often eventually headed south into the United States. There they could take advantage of a more advanced economy and a more efficient transportation system.

Many immigrants also chose the American West because it had a superior international image at the time. While it was described as the frontier of golden opportunity, the Canadian West was often conversely portrayed as uninhabitable, cold and barren.

It was these negative stereotypes that the federal government, the Canadian Pacific Railway and groups of nationalist Canadians began to challenge. They distributed immigration propaganda at home and abroad that described the West as a Promised Land, an "earthly paradise" with fertile soil and "the healthiest climate" in the world. Who could resist such a place?"

Yeah. Canada's part in the creation of Alberta was token at best. Ok.

I stick by what I said. Alberta was a dirt poor homely prairie girl who no one wanted to dance with except for Daddy Canada. Now she's all rich and fanciful-like and she don't need the likes of Canada no more. She's got Texas.

.

So what your saying is that we owe Canada everything, we are only what we are because of Canada, and god forbid that if we ever become really successful we should lay down and give everything we have worked for back to Canada, wait until all our resources are spent and go back to begging our masters for handouts....

[killjoy]

Stamps:

This is what one gets when one points out some stuff another didn't know and they decide to get offended by it:

So what your saying is that we owe Canada everything, we are only what we are because of Canada, and god forbid that if we ever become really successful we should lay down and give everything we have worked for back to Canada, wait until all our resources are spent and go back to begging our masters for handouts....

This is my favourite tactic. Extrapolate something said into something else so it's easier to argue with. I'm not even going to answer it.

You arrogantly told me...

I would suggest that you learn your history Killjoy......

When it's obvious your history begins with the oil-rush as well. You said it not because you know your history or because I didn't, but because you simply didn't like what I was saying. Too bad. Look on another thread. I admit it when there is evidence I am wrong. But what can I say? My handle is a given name not a chosen one. I realy am a killjoy.

Instead of getting offended, (or lippy), myself I pointed out the things that I was talking about. Now you don't seem to know what to do except argue with something I didn't say.

My comments are based on what is an accurate perception in my view. Albertains see no farther back than the oil boom or the mid-40’s when it comes down to who has done what for whom.

.

[stamps]

What really gets me about all this is peoples perception that Alberta does not contribute enough to this country, when in reality we do, in spades...... and that we have become successful through nothing but luck, and being the second class citizens that we are(poor praire girl), we somehow do not deserve it.... we have achieved everything we have playing by the rules of this country and now people resent it...... I'm sorry, I was'nt born to serve Ontario or Quebec.....

[killjoy]

What really gets me about all this is peoples perception that Alberta does not contribute enough to this country, when in reality we do, in spades......we have achieved everything we have playing by the rules of this country and now people resent it.....

Understandable. I agree. And although I haven't given the opinion I do believe in many ways Alberta and the West have been given the short end of the stick from time to time (especially under Truedau). The NEP was totally bias. I agree.

What really gets me about all this is Albertans perception that Canada's done nothing for us and we had to do it all ourselves. All the "we don't need Canada" I'm reading (in the papers, not here).

Look, the bottom line is we'd all probably be better served to treat what Klein said today as just what it is..."Canadian Politics 101: Using the threat of separatism or non-participation to get what you want when you really have no intention of separating at all". This is a common anti-Centralist ploy that works all the time because we were lazy and didn't go through the trouble of a bloody civil war to put an exclamation point at the end of the word, "central authority". Instead we would be better served concentrating on the details of the agreement itself rather than provicial pride...because far be it from me to suggest Ottawa wouldn't screw us.

.

[stamps]

Look, the bottom line is we'd all probably be better served to treat what Klein said today as just what it is..."Canadian Politics 101: Using the threat of separatism to get what you want when you really have no intention of separating at all". This is a common anti-Centralist ploy that works all the time because we were lazy and didn't go through the trouble of a bloody civil war to put an exclamation point at the end of the word, "central authority". Instead we would be better served concentrating on the details of the agreement itself rather than provicial pride...because far be it from me to suggest Ottawa wouldn't screw us.

.

Fair enough.....

[rbacon]

Why is Quebec's and Ontario's Hydro-electricity not apart of the equalization calculation? Uh Huh...Alberta should call a binding Referendum under the Clarity Act and begin negotiations to become the Republic of Alberta ASAP....

[Michael Hardner]

Why do I pay more for a car (before taxes) built in Ontario than someone in Seattle? At least you pay the same as someone in Seattle for Alberta's oil.

I do ? I think gas is cheaper in the US than in Canada, again due mostly to taxes.

Maybe Alberta could lure some auto makers to set-up shop here in Alberta, we're closer to China than eastern Canada, we have a business friendly enviroment, high standard of living, we're well situated in the fastest growing part if the continent.....

Cars from China are coming soon. That will be bad news for Ontario too. It would be interesting if the oil patch started brining in Chinese visa workers for 1$/hr as well. Don't laugh - it could happen.

[geoffrey]

I think your history is a bit muddled. Alberta came calling when Trudeau(not a word I like using)royally screwed the west and Ontario(the continual have) province told them to take a hike, so for Albertans to be anti anything towards Ontario is par for the course.

kj's point was that Albertans remember the NEP, but forget the times when they were the have-nots and the rest of the country bailed them out. You just proved it.

Black Dog, can you please provide some statistics that show that Alberta was ever a have-not province since the beginning of equalisation? It'll be tough to find, since it never has been.

Even in the lowest of the low Trudeau days, Alberta was still a have province, right in there behind Ontario.

[gc1765]

Black Dog, can you please provide some statistics that show that Alberta was ever a have-not province since the beginning of equalisation? It'll be tough to find, since it never has been.

I know my name is not Black Dog, but I think I can help. Here is a link from the government of Canada about equalization payments. Alberta did recieve equalization payments from 1957-1964.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/frmwrk_e.html

[rogue state]

geoffrey.

what makes you think that american's NEP will be better than a canadian one?

americans are as desperate as canadians are about price of gas pump.

there are also american voices calling for nationalisation, you cannot compete in a globalised world with nations that did it.

albertans will be the next abu ghraib prisoners

remember louisiana, it's a rich in resources state, and also a poor one in term of standard of living.

[Renegade]

the province owns the resources until it is extracted is obvious, your advocating that it should not, that the country should, which it does'nt, and any attempt to change it because certain regions noses are out of joint will not be accepted by Alberta, you can take that to the bank brother........ your the one trying to wrestle away what is rightfully Alberta's, no matter what spin or fruitless agrument you come up with to justify doing so....

stamps, I'm unclear on what you mean by "it's our oil". (I'm assuming "our" refers to Alberta's). If by "our oil" you mean that the Albertan provincial exclusively gets to impose royalties on the extraction of the oil, than that is true. The federal government takes no part of those royalties.

However, as incomes rise, due to the wealth created by the extraction of the oil, the Federal government DOES indeed have the power to tax income. So indirectly, the Federal government does benefit from the wealth of Albertans. At issue then, is what the Federal govenrnment does with that wealth. Here is where the equalization formula comes into play. I agree that the formula is deeply flawed and what is included or excluded is somewhat arbitrary. However, it is not in Alberta's power to "opt in" or "opt out" as long as Alberta is part of Canada, and has got nothing to do with whether it's "Alberta's oil"

[Minimus Maximus]

Cars from China are coming soon. That will be bad news for Ontario too. It would be interesting if the oil patch started brining in Chinese visa workers for 1$/hr as well. Don't laugh - it could happen.

Michael, this is already happening. I don't know what kind of wages are being paid, but I do know that there has been at least one project where Chinese workers were brought into Alberta due to a shortage of tradespeople.

What are your feelings on this?

[geoffrey]

Black Dog, can you please provide some statistics that show that Alberta was ever a have-not province since the beginning of equalisation? It'll be tough to find, since it never has been.

I know my name is not Black Dog, but I think I can help. Here is a link from the government of Canada about equalization payments. Alberta did recieve equalization payments from 1957-1964.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/frmwrk_e.html

EDIT: Opps, I forgot to address this. I wasn't considering pre-1964 numbers I guess, my bad. That $92 million in equilisation that we've receieved in total, even in today's dollars, is no where near our annual contributions to Newfoundland alone.

In the new formula, I worry about this "Setting fixed and growing levels of Equalization will bring stability and growth to the system and make for better fiscal planning." stated in your link. Why must our payments grow? Why do provinces feel they can have social programs without actually making progress? All welfare hampers progress, why would you expect a difference on the provincial level.

geoffrey.

what makes you think that american's NEP will be better than a canadian one?

americans are as desperate as canadians are about price of gas pump.

there are also american voices calling for nationalisation, you cannot compete in a globalised world with nations that did it.

albertans will be the next abu ghraib prisoners

remember louisiana, it's a rich in resources state, and also a poor one in term of standard of living.

What are you talking about? American NEP? What?!? Alberta is far from selling out to the Americans, we are pretty much robbing them blind with high energy prices. The amount of American money flowing into Canadian pockets in Alberta is just astounding. Alberta is benefiting greatly from the US right now, and will be well into the forseeable future.

The big stakeholders in the oil sands are mostly Canadian, with a little Netherlands backing from Royal Dutch Shell (through Shell Canada) and I think we have some support from BP (British Petroleum). Unless your more worried about the Euro's taking us over, I don't think your fears are justified.

I have no worry about American take out of my province. I think we are even more relucant to be a part of the US than Canada.

[Leader Circle]

This topic is pointless, for those centralized gov't lovers, they will always feel what belongs to Alberta, belongs to the ROC, except if you're talking about Ontario or Quebec, because they are the official no share provinces!

According to the constitution.

Canadian Constitution

NON-RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES,

FORESTRY RESOURCES AND ELECTRICAL ENERGY

Laws respecting non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources and electrical energy 92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to

(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;

( development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and

© development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.

Export from provinces of resources (2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or in supplies exported to another part of Canada.

Authority of Parliament (3) Nothing in subsection (2) derogates from the authority of Parliament to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to in that subsection and, where such a law of Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.

Taxation of resources (4) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of

(a) non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the primary production therefrom, and

( sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy and the production therefrom,

whether or not such production is exported in whole or in part from the province, but such laws may not authorize or provide for taxation that differentiates between production exported to another part of Canada and production not exported from the province.

"Primary production" (5) The expression "primary production" has the meaning assigned by the Sixth Schedule.

Existing powers or rights (6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) derogates from any powers or rights that a legislature or government of a province had immediately before the coming into force of this section. (49)

I am not a lawyer, maybe FTA can help me out here, but that seems to say, the natural resources are the Provincial responsibility and there right to make laws to govern it. I don't know how else to say it. If the oil is in Alberta, it belongs to them. If you read more about equalization, it doesn't really cover resources.

I think this should settle disputes about who the oil & it's revenues belong to.

[Wilber]

I do ? I think gas is cheaper in the US than in Canada, again due mostly to taxes.

Yes you do. That is why I said "before taxes". First you have to learn the difference between oil and gasoline. Ontario refineries buy their oil on the world market, just like everyone else. Alberta gets no part of Ontario's gasoline taxes and historically not much more than 5% of Federal gasoline taxes have been returned to the Provinces.

Cars from China are coming soon. That will be bad news for Ontario too. It would be interesting if the oil patch started brining in Chinese visa workers for 1$/hr as well. Don't laugh - it could happen.

I agree, it will be bad news for Ontario. I won't be good for the rest of the country either, any more than the West running out of oil and gas would be good for the country.

Last I heard, immigration was a Federal jurisdiction, except in Quebec of course. As far as I know all Provinces have minimum wage laws. I don't see the political advantage of importing workers who can't vote to take high paid jobs from people who can. On the other hand cars might be a lot cheaper if they did the same in Ontario's auto plants. But then, who would be making enough to buy them. Not Alberta oil patch workers making a buck an hour.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, this is already happening. I don't know what kind of wages are being paid, but I do know that there has been at least one project where Chinese workers were brought into Alberta due to a shortage of tradespeople.

What are your feelings on this?

MinMax... I think it's inevitable, and it helps our economy and China's on the whole. I don't know how these job losses will affect our social structure, or our psyche. I've already been personally affected by globalisation, as well as those I know who work in Information Technology.

Last I heard, immigration was a Federal jurisdiction, except in Quebec of course. As far as I know all Provinces have minimum wage laws. I don't see the political advantage of importing workers who can't vote to take high paid jobs from people who can.

Wilbur...

Minimum wage laws can be circumvented, and already have been. Contract workers, working for an offshore company can be imported to do work, if the proper loopholes are travelled.

The political advantage ? Take a look south of the border for an idea of how powerless politics can be when up against strong economics. The idea of amnesty to illegal workers is highly unpopular, but it is going forward anyway. The wage savings are too great.

On the other hand cars might be a lot cheaper if they did the same in Ontario's auto plants. But then, who would be making enough to buy them. Not Alberta oil patch workers making a buck an hour.

That's what I'm still trying to figure out. I think Henry Ford said it first...

[Renegade]

I am not a lawyer, maybe FTA can help me out here, but that seems to say, the natural resources are the Provincial responsibility and there right to make laws to govern it. I don't know how else to say it. If the oil is in Alberta, it belongs to them. If you read more about equalization, it doesn't really cover resources.

I think this should settle disputes about who the oil & it's revenues belong to.

You somehow seem to think that the rest of Canada is out to tax Alberta's oil revenues. They are not.

Let me ask you something. An oil executive working in Alberta earns, $200,000. Do you agree that the federal government has juristiction to tax that income? Because that income was generated from working in the oil industry, do you consider the income tax paid on that $200000 to be taxing the natural resources of the province?

[geoffrey]

I am not a lawyer, maybe FTA can help me out here, but that seems to say, the natural resources are the Provincial responsibility and there right to make laws to govern it. I don't know how else to say it. If the oil is in Alberta, it belongs to them. If you read more about equalization, it doesn't really cover resources.

I think this should settle disputes about who the oil & it's revenues belong to.

You somehow seem to think that the rest of Canada is out to tax Alberta's oil revenues. They are not.

Let me ask you something. An oil executive working in Alberta earns, $200,000. Do you agree that the federal government has juristiction to tax that income? Because that income was generated from working in the oil industry, do you consider the income tax paid on that $200000 to be taxing the natural resources of the province?

It's not taxation, its equalisation, taking money from Alberta and giving it to Quebec + Terroritories + Maritimes. Resource revenues are not the same as saleries, that is such a flawed comparison. Resource revenues can't be considered in the equalisation formula because they are not income, they are conversion from raw goods to cash, and this can only be done once.

[Renegade]

It's not taxation, its equalisation, taking money from Alberta and giving it to Quebec + Terroritories + Maritimes. Resource revenues are not the same as saleries, that is such a flawed comparison. Resource revenues can't be considered in the equalisation formula because they are not income, they are conversion from raw goods to cash, and this can only be done once.

What exactly do you mean by "taking money from Alberta"? You seem to think the Alberta government sends a cheque to the Federal government. This is not so.

I agree that resource revenues are not the same as salaries. Ottawa taxes salaries but not resource revenues. So I can't understand the whining about how its Aberta's oil and Ottawa should keep its hands off.

Equalization is a separate issue from "who's oil is it". Equalization is how some of the money which the federal government collects in tax revenue is redistributed to provincial governments. Personally I'm against equalization, and the current formula is absurd. However if we have no choice but to have equalization, I don't see why any provinces resource revenue should be excluded. To your point that it is a conversion of raw goods into cash which is only done once, it will only be counted once (during the year it is converted).

Geoffery look at the logic of your argument. Are the oil companies generating revenue from the oil by pumping it and selling it or are they just converting it from one form to another? If your answer is that they are just converting it, then why does Alberta tax them on that revenue? By your argument they are not generating any new revenue.

[Minimus Maximus]

Michael, correct me if I am wrong but I don't think an employer can bring in outside labor unless the jobs in question cannot be manned by Canadian workers. I know that the situation in Alberta was not about a company trying to increase profit margins but rather to bring in workers to fill vacant jobs so I don't see this as a negative aspect of globalization. I did have a line of reasoning here but seem to have lost it.

I would like to say that I tend to agree with Renegade's position on this as I understood it to be an issue of taxation on wages rather than an attempt to take resource revenues directly. I'm a little confused on my fellow Albertan's cries of "get your hands off our oil" as it doesn't seem to be a cash grab by the feds in the same way that the NEP was.

Another point I would like to address is that royalties on combined conventional and tar sands oil was around 3 billion last year where royalties from natural gas were around 7 billion, so whats all this talk about oil.