Alberta Leadership Race

[B. Max]

I just found out that all three top candidates support the Pembina Institute's call for a public inquiry into royalty rates!! Now I am a happy camper, maybe there is hope after all for the citizens of my province. We have already lost about 50 billion with my math and perhaps a lot more, but maybe we will see some action.

If we get that crap straightened out, then fix the Heritage Trust Fund we will actually be doing something for our children. That reformation seems to have a little steam in the three top guys too. Just think about it for a second, if we return to properly funding that bank account and reform it into what the Socreds created it for we will have the Alberta Permanent Fund. A fund which pays every man women and child of this province a dividend every year!

How do you figure we lost fifty billion. Who is we, and when did we lose this money.

[kimmy]

How do you figure we lost fifty billion. Who is we,

Albertans

and when did we lose this money.

Over the span of however many years this province has been practically giving away its resources by charging a fraction of the royalty rates that other jurisdiction charge.

-k

[geoffrey]

Norway charges over 70% tax on their resources, yet demand is high still. I'm sure we can get away with a little bit higher.... but we don't want to discourage development like Newfoundland and Saskatchewan have done. The market is a little different on this side of the world.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That number is actually low balled. Had our resource royalties been on par with an international average we would have seen at least 30 billion alone from 92-97. Keep in mind the Tories stopped putting money into the fund in 83. That is a long time ago, and revenues could have been put in that would have increased the size of the fund greatly.

[geoffrey]

That number is actually low balled. Had our resource royalties been on par with an international average we would have seen at least 30 billion alone from 92-97. Keep in mind the Tories stopped putting money into the fund in 83. That is a long time ago, and revenues could have been put in that would have increased the size of the fund greatly.

And you and I wouldn't be paying taxes. I get it...

Though we actually would be paying taxes, the RoC wouldn't let us have a tax free society. Maybe that's the reason.

[August1991]

That number is actually low balled. Had our resource royalties been on par with an international average we would have seen at least 30 billion alone from 92-97. Keep in mind the Tories stopped putting money into the fund in 83. That is a long time ago, and revenues could have been put in that would have increased the size of the fund greatly.

I started a thread on this topic here with data.

I quote from there:

In 2001-02 Norwegians may realize more than five times more revenue per barrel of oil and gasproduced than Alberta: Cdn. $19.65 for every Norwegian barrel of oil and gas produced versus$3.88 per barrel of Alberta oil and gas produced. If Albertans received the Norwegian rate of returnon their oilsands and natural gas production, $29.2 billion in oil and gas revenues would be flowingto government coffers in 2001-02 or $23.4 billion more than is budgeted.

It's interesting too that Norwegian oil is like tar sands oil: a large upfront, fixed cost.

I frankly think that Klein and the Albertan PCs have wasted this natural resource rent by letting many, small oil & gas firms exist. The rent is dissipated as these firms compete to get a piece of the action. In turn, these firms support the Albertan PCs.

It's as if Klein buried the money in the ground and then told many small exploration firms to go looking for it. It's a dumb way to distribute wealth and it's no way to build an economy.

[blueblood]

Norway charges over 70% tax on their resources, yet demand is high still. I'm sure we can get away with a little bit higher.... but we don't want to discourage development like Newfoundland and Saskatchewan have done. The market is a little different on this side of the world.

I figure that if all the provinces charged the same tax on their resources there wouldn't be discouraged development, I don't blame the oil companies for going to Alberta if they're practically giving it away when next door theyr'e charging a fortune, if all oil provinces (don't know about good ol' manitoba, i know they have a drilling rig going in Melita that just fired up this year, plus others in that corner of the province) would have had a reasonable tax rate somewhere in the middle the oil industry in Canada would be in much better shape. I don't know if I was the federal government, I'd almost spend the surplus on developing the NFLD oil industry, i'd think i'd get a pretty good return...

[B. Max]

How do you figure we lost fifty billion. Who is we,

Albertans

and when did we lose this money.

Over the span of however many years this province has been practically giving away its resources by charging a fraction of the royalty rates that other jurisdiction charge.

-k

Take a look next door to Saskatchewan and see what you would have for an economy. Nothing. If there is no money in it the oil companies just close up shop. New found land is finding that out right now.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I frankly think that Klein and the Albertan PCs have wasted this natural resource rent by letting many, small oil & gas firms exist. The rent is dissipated as these firms compete to get a piece of the action.

Here again, you are an enigma. You seem to be suggesting that competition is bad, and that the state's interests should usurp 'market forces' for it's own benefit.

In turn, these firms support the Albertan PCs.

Any firm will support any party (well, within reason) that enables maximization of profits.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Alberta could have, without much effort or fuss a revenue stream based on our resource royalties that would be sufficient for our needs. We can eliminate provincial income taxes. This I do advocate very strongly. It does not however address the federal component of taxation, that we can do nothing about while remaining in confederation.

[Charles Anthony]

Here again, you are an enigma. You seem to be suggesting that competition is bad, and that the state's interests should usurp 'market forces' for it's own benefit.

It sounds consistent to me if you believe that the state owns the land and resources underneath.

Any firm will support any party (well, within reason) that enables maximization of profits.

A government who wants to maintain power every single year will also want the support of every firm and their employees. What else would you expect from a state?

[August1991]

Premier Ted Morton?

Is this guy as scary, scary as the Globe & Mail is depicting:

An American-born social conservative who preaches against same-sex marriage, promotes privatized health care and wants more powers for Alberta is emerging as a serious threat in the race to replace Premier Ralph Klein.

...

Mr. Morton wants to renegotiate provincial transfer payments, concerned that too much money leaves Alberta and ends up in Quebec coffers. He also favours more privatized health care and a provincial pension plan and police force; he also wants to allow those who perform marriage ceremonies to refuse same-sex couples.

Quebec and Ontario both have their own provincial poliuce forces. Quebec has its own state pension plan. Quebec has private health care clinics. Ontario also wants to renegotiate transfer payments. And once I get further down in the article, I read that Morton isn't going to abolish same-sex marriage.

So, what's left? Morton is American-born. Well, so is Elizabeth May. Is she also scary, scary?

----

Dear August1991,

I frankly think that Klein and the Albertan PCs have wasted this natural resource rent by letting many, small oil & gas firms exist. The rent is dissipated as these firms compete to get a piece of the action.

Here again, you are an enigma. You seem to be suggesting that competition is bad, and that the state's interests should usurp 'market forces' for it's own benefit.

We can take this up elsewhere if you want but the long and short of it is that competition is bad and co-operation is good. Price competition however leads to co-operation.

I posted the comment about oil & gas royalties in response to Kimmy's post. I obviously haven't followed the Alberta PC race closely but it seems to me that resource royalties should be front and centre. IMV, this is the issue in Albertan politics.

Is there any leadership candidate arguing in favour of increasing them?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Actually all three remaining candidates favour a public review of resource royalties. The previous governments designed them to attract foreign investment in the wake of the NEP. The provincial tactic was successfull because it was a tax holiday as compared to the tax grab the feds made. That investment was what placed us where we are today, buit there was a great cost to the tax paying citizen to do it. So the tactic was a success, but it was never envisioned that the price of oil would double. Now these record profits are working against us to a degree. There is room to renegotiate the rates. Increasing them to the same as Alaska charges would almost double our revenues on paper. That of course does not take into account the reduced revenue from conventional oil, which has a far higher rate of royalty associated with it. The main problem is that our tar sands oil is labelled bitumen and that has a far lower price associated with it. That is the main reason we need to renegotiate the rates, because prior to exporting it it becomes synthetic oil and as such needs to be valued at a higher rate. There is another reason we need to renegotiate these deals, and that is the issue of refining. We need to discuss the implications of the loss of value added profits associated with the export of raw material. Our economy would benefit from an expanded secondary industry, which of course provides a far higher degree of employment than primary industry.

All three candidates for Premier favour opening for public consideration these issues. This could facilitate a fundemental change in our economy. If successful, you can expect Alberta to nearly double its provincial revenue stream from royalties alone. Along with that increase from resource revenue an expanded secondary industry would provide large corporate income tax revenues. In addition the increased employment would provide the usual 8 times more in personal income taxes for the province. So all things considered it becomes a way to fund the required infrastructure investments to provide government services such as healthcare and education to the growing population.

When you take into consideration the increased emplyoment and investment as an effect of economic expansion what you also realize is a large pool young working families. This would pay for a provincial pension plan and provincial police force. In Alberta we have a great opportunity before us, if we don't screw it up first. The next Premier has a big job before them, never before have we been so close to finally getting our house in order. All it will take is a little planning and a lot of forward thinking.

[Black Dog]

Take a look next door to Saskatchewan and see what you would have for an economy. Nothing. If there is no money in it the oil companies just close up shop. New found land is finding that out right now.

Or, uh, look at Norway.

I don't think, in today's marketplace, many oil companies would turn their noses up at shelling out a wee bit more for the privilege of extracting the people's oil. There's just too much money to be made.

IOW, there's a middle ground where everyone can get what they want. And if a slight increase in royalties is enough to deter some companies from making a killing, f--k 'em. Someone else will step in.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Exactly! These folks have pumped billions of dollars into production infrastructure in the tar sands and they are not likely to walk away from it. The profit margin is rather fat or they wouldn't have invested to the degree they have.

[Black Dog]

Morton wants energy revenue vote

Ted Morton, one of three men jockeying to replace Ralph Klein as Tory leader, started the final week of the campaign by promising a referendum on how much of the province’s energy bonanza should be set aside for a rainy day.

Morton told reporters in Calgary on Monday the referendum would be held when Albertans go to the polls for municipal elections next October, asking them what percentage of the province’s annual oil and gas revenues should go to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund.

While Morton believes 30 per cent of the province’s energy revenues should go into fund, he says Albertans should decide.

It's one thing to believe that citzens know how to spend their own money better than the government (living in Alberta, I see living proof to the contrary every day, but I digress), another for the citizens to tell the government what to do. Howzabout a leader who leads instead of deferring important decisions to the minority of people who bother to vote.

[Black Dog]

The breakdown of the voting in today's paper was interesting as well. Dinning swept Calgary and took good chunks of Edmonton, while Morton's support came mainly fromt the Bible Bel...er...south.

His quixotic gay mariage hang up aside, my big beef with Morton is he doesn't seem to have much of a plan for what to do right now. Provincial police and pension plans are debates for down the road: has he uttered a peep about the shit state of our infrastructure, our cash starved municipalities, our housing shortage?Above all, though, his isolationist stance seems profoundly backward in this day and age. The vibe I get is one of a closed-minded reactionary who plans on playing off of Albertans' fear of change. I may reconsider my pint and go cast a ballot for Dinning after all.

[Hydraboss]

The breakdown of the voting in today's paper was interesting as well. Dinning swept Calgary and took good chunks of Edmonton, while Morton's support came mainly fromt the Bible Bel...er...south.

His quixotic gay mariage hang up aside, my big beef with Morton is he doesn't seem to have much of a plan for what to do right now. Provincial police and pension plans are debates for down the road: has he uttered a peep about the shit state of our infrastructure, our cash starved municipalities, our housing shortage?Above all, though, his isolationist stance seems profoundly backward in this day and age. The vibe I get is one of a closed-minded reactionary who plans on playing off of Albertans' fear of change. I may reconsider my pint and go cast a ballot for Dinning after all.

Isolationism is good. Morton is good. Vote Morton.

But whatever you do, don't give up the pint. Never give up the pint.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

He is still a Tory, that means we will have to wait and see what happens. The days of the Tories are numbered in this province. This is a free mandate, the next one will be the last.

[Canadian Blue]

It looks as if no matter what the tories would be fractured. If Dinning win's the party will move more to the left thus pissing off the right wing, and more people going to the Alliance or some other party. If they move to the right, then the moderates will go to the Liberal's, or perhaps a new party.

I think the Tory era might be coming to an end. Unless Stelmach is able to come up the middle.

As for Ted Morton being much more "socially conservative", here is a link to a pro-life site which can give you an insight into the views of the PC's on Abortion.

Following is Campaign Life Coalition Alberta’s evaluation of the candidates:

Jim Dinning: Currently considered the front runner: believes that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. That is an explicit pro-abortion position. Dinning should be actively opposed.

Lyle Oberg: He supports parental consent, women’s right to know information regarding abortion, conscience legislation, opposes euthanasia and supports palliative care and believes in the sanctity of marriage (one man, one woman). On defunding of abortions he would only look at having ‘not all abortions paid for', specifically repeat abortions. He would consider “a tighter definition for ‘medically necessary’ abortions”. 2004 election- no response

Ted Morton: He has been completely unresponsive to CLC’s questions and communications. A senior Morton official stated that Ted’s campaign is “not touching” the abortion or other life issues. He stated the issues are “too divisive”. Ted introduced Bill 208 to protect religious freedom on same-sex marriage. However in 2004 he answered “no” to a question “would you support de-insuring all abortions except those done for medical reasons?” He answered “no” to requiring informed consent for abortions. He also answered “yes with reservations” to a question on requiring parental consent for abortion. He answered “yes” to conscience rights for health care workers. 2004 Election: answered exactly the same as this time

Victor Doerksen : He has taken strong pro-life stands in the caucus but has not responded to correspondence of any kind on the pro-life leadership questions.

In 2004 election:

Marriage-one man/one woman- he answered “yes”

Defund all abortion- he answered “yes”

Parental consent- he answered “yes”

Informed consent- he answered- “yes”

Conscience legislation- he answered “yes”

_____

Statements from other candidates: Most hold positions that are effectively anti-life, based on their answers to one or more questions or lack of any significant commitment.

Mark Norris:

Abortion - supports more education and believes other options should be presented.

Euthanasia - he would endorse a general referendum and invoke the notwithstanding clause if necessary.

Ed Stelmach:

Abortion - he would consider working with churches, families and governments to reduce numbers of abortions.

Euthanasia - he would investigate legal options and stands against right-to-die legislation

2004 election:

marriage-one man/one woman- he answered “yes”

defunding all abortions- he answered “yes with reservations

parental consent- he answered “yes”

Informed consent- he answered “not certain”

Conscience legislation – he answered “yes with reservations”

Gary McPherson:

Abortion - he is concerned about repeat abortions. Disabilities should not be a reason to have an abortion.

Euthanasia - Pro-euthanasia - would not want legislation but favours allowing personal choice

Dave Hancock:

Abortion - if abortion for medical purposes were de-listed, “medically necessary” would have to be defined

Euthanasia – Pro-euthanasia - personally not in favour but can’t choose for others

In 2004 election- he did not respond.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Morton is a liberal republican and he is an American transplant. The PC party works for his idealism. He would be a good guy for Alberta to have around in cases of confrontation with Ottawa as well as in friendship in Washington.

His only real failing is his approach to public healthcare, and his desire to supplement with optional private care.

[geoffrey]

Take a look next door to Saskatchewan and see what you would have for an economy. Nothing. If there is no money in it the oil companies just close up shop. New found land is finding that out right now.

Or, uh, look at Norway.

Sorry BD, but I'm going to have to let you in on a little bit of a secret.

Most of Norway's exploration is done by state owned or controlled companies. They operate because they are a part of the government, not because Norway has a competitive market, because it doesn't.

Norway also happens to be one of the only sources of natural gas for Western Europe (Russia being the other). The market is very tasty. According to this, most European countries pay twice as much for natural gas as we do!

That's why Norway pulls massive royalties and still is successful in exploration. If you had water resources in Saudi Arabia, you could charge 70% royalties and have a successful industry too.

The question remains, do Canadians want to pay European prices for natural gas? And, where do we draw the balance between low royalty Alberta wealth and high anti-business environment Newfoundland and Saskatchewan have-not-ishness?

We don't get a great deal now, but we must be careful in going forward with royalty hikes. The infrastructure is here for oil, so really, the government has some playing room, they aren't going to leave tomorrow. But to ensure future development, especially high cost fields, we need to stay extremely competitive.

[fellowtraveller]

Dinning is really, really unlikely to do anything substantial that changes royalties.

Morton is finished IMO,every fundie Christian and socon has already voted for him. he won't be second on many ballots.

Stelmach has a very real chance of being Premier, I expect him to get enough votes to finish second, Morton will get enough to deny Dinning a straight up win - and Stelmach will be everybodys second choice - giving him the prize.

And almost less important than royalty review is the urgent need to have bitumen upgrading and oil refining remain in Alberta. Stelmach supports this.....

[Black Dog]

Sorry BD, but I'm going to have to let you in on a little bit of a secret.

Most of Norway's exploration is done by state owned or controlled companies. They operate because they are a part of the government, not because Norway has a competitive market, because it doesn't.

IMO, that's largely beside the point, which is that there's room to manouever wrt royalty rates: you clearly agree.

The question remains, do Canadians want to pay European prices for natural gas? And, where do we draw the balance between low royalty Alberta wealth and high anti-business environment Newfoundland and Saskatchewan have-not-ishness?

We don't get a great deal now, but we must be careful in going forward with royalty hikes. The infrastructure is here for oil, so really, the government has some playing room, they aren't going to leave tomorrow. But to ensure future development, especially high cost fields, we need to stay extremely competitive.

So it's obvious we have some leeway. An increase in royalty rates (why not tie royalties to prices so that companies aren't getting a free ride during times like this, but won't get screwed if the price drops?) won't neccesarily turn us into Saskatchewan (bonus question: did the flight of the oil industry in SK. tie to royalty rates?)

[jdobbin]

Looks like Morton has got some PCs scared.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061128/...lta_tories_fear