Alberta's wealth

[bob vernon]

Alberta is running a $3.5 billion deficit this year. Again. Royalties? We don't charge no royalties!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/ ... 9720140108

[hobbyguy]

You aren't inferring that a Conservative premier, who got tutelage from Brian (put the money in an envelope) Mulroney, allied with a Conservative prime minister, would sell out Alberta and Canadian interests. are you??

Let's see,Redford Cons cut the royalties to shreds in Alberta, then to cover off the big profits, Harper Cons drop corporate income tax levels to the lowest in the G8, and only half of the world average.

Canadian government subsidies to big oil are said to be $24-26 billion per year (per IMF report).

Eliminate those subsides, and Canada has no federal deficit, and neither does Alberta. But instead, it gets tacked onto government debt - and you and I pay. Again. And again - because the "deficit problem" is being "solved" by increasing payroll taxes, and reducing services.

Sigh.

[Atomoa]

If we build the pipeline all the (negative) money will come rolling our way!

[logicalview]

Alberta is running a $3.5 billion deficit this year. Again. Royalties? We don't charge no royalties!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/ ... 9720140108

Where did you see the information about the deficit? I thought your link would be to the story about the deficit, but instead it's just a link to yet another story about stupid Norway, that has nothing to do with Alberta. I tried to google this and nothing comes up about a $3.5 billion deficit, but they did have a "flood of the century" this year that a lot of insensitive AGW fraud loving loons and nuts said Alberta deserved because of the "tar" sands. At any rate - instead of just looking at the royalties and revenue side, perhaps there are still a lot of expenditures that the government is making that could be cut back? I know you radical leftists just want to spend spend spend but there are other alternatives.

[logicalview]

Canadian government subsidies to big oil are said to be $24-26 billion per year (per IMF report).

.

I tried googling this statement as well and came up empty. As of now I have just chalked it up with your other fibs, including the one about the Federal government spending "hundreds of millions" to "promote" the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

Sigh. Sigh indeed. I just don't get why you guys have to always resort to drastically stretching the truth to try and make your radical leftist agenda seem rational. And if Norway is so great, why not move there? I laughed at this comment from Bob's link:

It may also have made some Norwegians reluctant to work. "One in five people of working age receives some kind of social insurance instead of working," Doerum said, despite an official unemployment rate of 3.3 percent.

That has to be appealing to leftists everywhere - sitting around all day getting paid to drink coffee at the Bean Scene and whine and complain about capitalism. What a great deal! Oh wait, they do that here too.

[Glacier]

Sigh.

Funny, in the last provincial election, leftists were clambering over each other to vote for Redford's government despite the fact her party was promising to increase subsidies to oil companies while all the other parties, including the Wild Rose, were promising to get rid of the tax breaks and subsidies to Big Oil. I guess the left doesn't care about the environment as much as they'd like us to believe.

[maryjane48]

Funny, in the last provincial election, leftists were clambering over each other to vote for Redford's government despite the fact her party was promising to increase subsidies to oil companies while all the other parties, including the Wild Rose, were promising to get rid of the tax breaks and subsidies to Big Oil. I guess the left doesn't care about the environment as much as they'd like us to believe.

actually we arent leftists we would be realists such as einstein, gandhi. neil armstrong jfk ect ect , but on the right who we have ? hmmmmmmmm lets see we have sarah palin , we have glen beck , oh dont forget putin , the leader of china. vander zalm, bill the im a idiot bennett ect ect i know what team i like to be with ok carry on your lies

[hobbyguy]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/24/bitumen-bubble-redford-warns-of-austere-times-to-come-amid-soaring-alberta-deficits/

"In an eight-minute speech broadcast on CTV, Alison Redford blamed a “bitumen bubble” and warned Albertans about austere times to come. The government has forecast a deficit in the current fiscal year of $3-billion.

She said the bubble — the difference between the benchmark price for oil in North America versus Alberta’s oilsands bitumen — has grown so wide it will take a $1-billion bite out of this year’s budget and $6-billion the next."

Nothing much there about the flooding. I'm guessing this is why: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-flood-relief-to-get-2-8b-from-federal-government-1.2424273

"The federal government reimburses provinces for up to 90 per cent of approved claims under the disaster assistance agreement between Ottawa and the provinces.

"Big picture? This is going to be a huge, huge federal fiscal commitment to post-flood reconstruction efforts in Alberta and the $2.8 billion I do not anticipate that will be the end of it," Kenney said."

That is as it should be, all of Canada is pitching in to help out with the flooding disaster, from BC to Newfoundland.

http://ecoopportunity.net/2013/04/fossil-fuel-subsidies-nearly-800-per-canadian-says-the-imf/

"According the IMF study and the additional data they provided to me, Canada used $26 billion to subsidize energy in 2011. The Canadian government’s revenues were $665 billion in that year. In other words, 4% of the government revenues were spent on energy subsidies."

Subject to some different interpretations, but there is a ballpark figure.

And this one about royalty subsidies from Alberta: http://albertaventure.com/2013/12/oil-sands-investment-transform-alberta/

"When the oil sands were a marginal, capital-intensive play, offering companies a heavily discounted royalty rate until their project reached payout (that is, until it had returned an amount on the original capital investment needed to build the project equivalent to that offered by a Canadian government bond) was an effective enticement. But with nearly two million barrels a day coming out of the oil sands, that enticement is no longer necessary – and may well be doing more harm than good."

And that article says about new investments in the oil sands: "They are, as Plourde says, “not spending dollar dollars – they’re spending 40- or 50-cent dollars at best.” The rest is subsidies.

In essence, the Alberta government has transferred all of the risk to the citizens of Alberta, and is almost guaranteeing a return on investment to big oil corporations. Their bet being that the US would be climbing all over itself to buy dilbit. Then the Bakken shale oil happened - and oops, that bet looks pretty shaky when the US has a lot of new oil that is much, much, cheaper to refine. And oops, the Mexicans are changing their oil industry, and increasing the supply of their heavy oil and other products, and oops, it is also cheaper to refine. If you read between the lines in this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2013/12/16/what-does-mexicos-oil-industry-reform-mean-for-investors/ the smart money is heading away from the oil sands and into Mexico.

Maybe, just maybe, the oil sands bubble has burst.

The US has an estimated 2,085,228 million barrels of oil shale reserves (which they have barely touched). The oil sands have reserves of 177,000 million barrels.

Hmmm.

[WhenWhatWho]

actually we arent leftists we would be realists such as einstein, gandhi. neil armstrong jfk ect ect , but on the right who we have ? hmmmmmmmm lets see we have sarah palin , we have glen beck , oh dont forget putin , the leader of china. vander zalm, bill the im a idiot bennett ect ect i know what team i like to be with ok carry on your lies

Hmmmmm, you do realize it's people on the right that keep our economy running so your Daddy has a job, don't you?

Realists? Bwahahahahaha!!!!

[A_Britishcolumbian]

If Every Norwegian's a Millionaire, Why's Alberta in Hock?
Norway cut a proper deal with oil corporations. Canadians got screwed.
By Mitchell Anderson, 15 Jan 2014

Feeling poor? A recent news item showed that Norway's massive pot of petroleum money, now totaling CA$909.364 billion, has made every citizen a millionaire in Norwegian kroner. That works out to about $178,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. By contrast, every Canadian lumbers under an individual debt of $17,000 as Ottawa is in hock to the tune of $600 billion.

Not only is Norway ahead of Canada by $1.5 trillion, it has fully funded social programs that Canadians can only dream of.* Norwegians enjoy universal day care, free university tuition, per capita spending on health care 30 per cent higher than Canada and 25 days of paid vacation every year. By owning 70 per cent of their own oil production and taxing oil revenues at close to 80 per cent, Norway is now saving about $1 billion per week.

The so-called "Calgary School" of economic thought would say this stunning socialist success story is impossible in the same way that scientists used to believe that bumblebees cannot fly. Out in the real world, Canada is being trounced on the field of comparative fiscal management.

Last year, the Fort McMurray School District voted on a proposal to shorten the school week to four days. Why? Because the communities that include some of the largest petroleum reserves on the planet couldn't afford school bus drivers five days a week. The motion was voted down not because this situation is insanely stupid, but because trustees worried that tar sands workers couldn't access daycare during a shortened school week.

Misguided true believers

Alberta has run consecutive budget deficits since 2008 and since then has burned through $15 billion of its sustainability fund. In spite of Alberta's vast petroleum wealth, the province has not contributed a penny to the now moribund Alberta Heritage Fund since 1987. The belief that all tax is bad has led Canada's three western provinces to the bizarre position where they proudly collect less resource revenues on behalf of their citizens than any other jurisdiction in North America.

In spite of this remarkable fiscal failure, Alberta true believers are having another round of ideological Kool-Aid. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has just launched a provincial debt clock while at the same time campaigning against tax increases. They calculate Alberta's debt at more than $7 billion and increasing by $11 million every day. In socialist Norway, national wealth is heading in the opposite direction at more than 10 times that rate, with savings of $142 million per day.

The anti-tax worldview has migrated from Calgary to Ottawa, where it is being imposed on the rest of the country. In 2009, Prime Minister Harper stated flatly, "I don't believe any taxes are good taxes." Not merely a remarkably ignorant statement from someone who holds a Masters degree in economics, this position indicates Canada's elected leader is opposed to the very project of government -- not unlike hiring a hijacker as an airline pilot.

True to his ideology, Harper's collective cuts to the GST, corporate taxes and personal income taxes now total about $45 billion per year in forgone government revenue. Canada is eliminating up to 30,000 public sector jobs in a supposed effort to balance the budget and currently collects less public revenue as a proportion of GDP than even the U.S.

This austerity program seems to extend to virtually every government program except those promoting resource extraction and hectoring environmental groups. Ottawa is spending $22 million to hire a high-priced ad firm to promote the Alberta oil sands. Last year, the Harper government somehow found an extra $8 million in a belt-tightening budget to have the Canada Revenue Agency investigate non-profits for inappropriate political lobbying (they found nothing). Meanwhile, Canadians are told we can no longer afford mail delivery.

I had the privilege of travelling to Norway in 2012 to research a series for The Tyee on the country's remarkable petroleum success story. Many of the experts I interviewed expressed surprise and sadness that Canada had not done more with our vast resource wealth. One veteran oil engineer said, "We had oil, but you have oil and everything else."

Our national niceness seems to have infused our dealings with resource interests, whereas Norway's Viking chutzpah allowed them to negotiate much tougher terms with the world's most powerful industrial sector.

This prophetic cultural divide has left our remarkably lucky country -- blessed with everything from potash to diamonds -- slashing services and public sector jobs in an effort balance the books. Meanwhile in Norway, every citizen just became a millionaire.

*Correction: Jan. 17 at 12 p.m. Figure changed from $1.4 trillion to $1.5 trillion.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/01/15/If ... a-in-Hock/

[logicalview]

By owning 70 per cent of their own oil production and taxing oil revenues at close to 80 per cent, Norway is now saving about $1 billion per week.

/

This is a complete lie, that is parroted by idiots and believed by naïve boneheads. What a surprise, the Tyee is lying again about something to support their bogus radical leftist agenda. Norway does NOT tax oil revenues at 80%. No one would ever accept those terms, and they don't exist. How anyone could be dumb enough to fall for this is just plain unbelievable, but then again, naïve boneheads are the backbone of the Tyee and the NDP.

[logicalview]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/24/bitumen-bubble-redford-warns-of-austere-times-to-come-amid-soaring-alberta-deficits/

"In an eight-minute speech broadcast on CTV, Alison Redford blamed a “bitumen bubble” and warned Albertans about austere times to come. The government has forecast a deficit in the current fiscal year of $3-billion.

Yes, but the article you are linking to is a year old. I asked why the OP thinks that THIS year (2014) there is going to be another $3.5 billion deficit? I can't find any evidence to this effect, and the link he provided was to yet another stupid story about Norway. The Norway nonsense is really coming fast and furious from the People these days.

I wouldn't be totally against another National oil company HG, if it was implemented differently than the sleazeball Trudeau did it in 1980 and expropriated (read - stole) a lot of property from current owners. That's just communism and it sucks. I'd like to see BC Oil set up, and only the rights granted to that company be the rights to drill off shore BC. Just like Norway, we'd drill the hell out of our off shore resources, and just like Norway, we'd set up a structure such that we, being BC Oil, would be a big beneficiary. The idiotic boneheads running the Tyee lied their radical leftist rock-filled heads off about how much Norway keeps of their oil sales, but that being said, their model does appear to work. If it meant we finally found the gonads to drill off-shore BC, I'd be all for BC Oil being created, at which point we could truly be LIKE Norway, and not just be cut and pasters of nonsensical articles written by lying scumbags.

http://ecoopportunity.net/2013/04/fossil-fuel-subsidies-nearly-800-per-canadian-says-the-imf/

"According the IMF study and the additional data they provided to me, Canada used $26 billion to subsidize energy in 2011. The Canadian government’s revenues were $665 billion in that year. In other words, 4% of the government revenues were spent on energy subsidies."

Subject to some different interpretations, but there is a ballpark figure.

I looked at your article, and the IMF "study" if it could be called that, and no where, not anywhere, could I find any reference to Canada "using" $26 billion to subsidize energy in 2011. I did a complete document search, and it wasn't anywhere. All I could really see was that the writer of this article, SURPRISE given the source, just completely made this number up out of thin air. What a shock. I'd also be curious how and what these people consider a "subsidy". It seems a case of semantics to me, just as when leftists with no clue of taxation policy or basic economics talk about "tax loopholes". They have no clue what they are talking about, but they parrot blarney about "loopholes" constantly.

This just sounds like another made up number solely for the purpose of parroting, such that if it is repeated enough, naïve ignorant people will believe it, much like the Norway 80% number. Complete garbage, but if you don't know anything about the industry, and you trust the horrible disgusting source, then some will fall for it.

I also don't understand why if you hate subsidies so much, you don't ever mention the $12 billion the US taxpayers forked out to prop up the horrible wind industry in 2013. And of course the billions of other subsidies going to other failed "renewables". Those subsidies are complete shareholder rip-offs, never to be recovered. If you want to talk about "balanced" budgets - if you cut out the $22 billion spent "fighting" global warming and the further $12 billion spent on subsidizing failed wind projects, there's $34 billion right there!

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/0 ... collapses/

Germany - $130 billion of taxpayer cashe completely wasted on subsidies to solar power! Just completely vaporized! Why aren't you crying about that!

And this one about royalty subsidies from Alberta: http://albertaventure.com/2013/12/oil-sands-investment-transform-alberta/

"When the oil sands were a marginal, capital-intensive play, offering companies a heavily discounted royalty rate until their project reached payout (that is, until it had returned an amount on the original capital investment needed to build the project equivalent to that offered by a Canadian government bond) was an effective enticement. But with nearly two million barrels a day coming out of the oil sands, that enticement is no longer necessary – and may well be doing more harm than good."

And that article says about new investments in the oil sands: "They are, as Plourde says, “not spending dollar dollars – they’re spending 40- or 50-cent dollars at best.” The rest is subsidies.

Right - and this is exactly what Norway does too - they allow producers the right to reclaim all of their capital expenditures up front before they even start paying tax. But it's ok if Norway does it, they are the darling of the radical left. Venezuela has "tar sands" too, but I doubt Neil will drop his bong and hop in his LinkVolt and drive to Caracas any time soon. It's always about the "Tar Sands", while everyone else gets a free pass.

Maybe, just maybe, the oil sands bubble has burst.

Nope. It will burst when it is no longer profitable to produce oil from them. Not when radical leftists decide it has burst.

[hobbyguy]

Lets see, 1 +1 = 3, nope that ain't logical (as usual).

The number quoted for subsidies came from the IMF - and if you noticed, I said subject to interpretation, as Christine Legarde can be a little different at times. Smart lady, but different.

Lessee now, did I mention Norway? Nope not this time. But anyway, Statoil, the Norwegian state oil company: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Statoil?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com 67% government owned - and Norway does NOT charge themselves royalties - that would be circular - and so does not subsidize. http://www.arcticgas.gov/norway%E2%80%99s-different-approach-to-oil-and-gas-development

You must like this one though: 28% tax on land based profits, and 50% tax on offshore oil profits - cool, maybe Harper will do that eh? Oops, no, he likes 12% + loopholes and subsidies = diddly. But I like Norway's structure. Redford could drop the royalties and charge the 28% tax, and BC could call it "offshore" when it gets on a tanker and charge 22% to make it up to 50%. That might almost be a fair deal for the southern route.

Oh, and if you read the story, Redford forecast a $6 billion deficit for 2014. It will possibly be a little smaller as they cut back, playing scrooge with seniors drug benefits etc.

But just to show what good (sarcasm on) economic managers conservatives are, you should read this: http://www.bnn.ca/News/2013/3/7/Alberta-deficit-to-top-63B-next-year.aspx and note that the Alberta Sustainability fund is, well "poof" - gone.

[maryjane48]

Hmmmmm, you do realize it's people on the right that keep our economy running so your Daddy has a job, don't you?

Realists? Bwahahahahaha!!!!

running into the ground you must mean lololol i can put internet laughs on to . it seems to me when the libs were running the country canada was better off

[logicalview]

Lets see, 1 +1 = 3, nope that ain't logical (as usual).

And HG backtracks when caught in a fib (as usual).

The number quoted for subsidies came from the IMF

Actually Fibber McGee, the number quoted did NOT come from the IMF. No where in their report was this number mentioned. The only person who stated this number was the guy who wrote the blog you linked to, a completely unbiased source. This is how these things always start with the radical left - invent a number, then parrot it over and over again, until it becomes accepted by the naïve and ignorant in society, such that then people state "There is a 98% consensus among climate scientists that man-made climate change exists" - totally untrue, yet parroted enough people believe it. It's so sad that you guys have to invent lies like this to try and sell the public on your backward views.

- and if you noticed, I said subject to interpretation, as Christine Legarde can be a little different at times. Smart lady, but different.

Who the hell is Christine Legarde? Never mind, I really don't care.

But anyway, Statoil, the Norwegian state oil company: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Statoil?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com 67% government owned - and Norway does NOT charge themselves royalties - that would be circular - and so does not subsidize. http://www.arcticgas.gov/norway%E2%80%99s-different-approach-to-oil-and-gas-development

ah of course they don't charge themselves royalties, that wasn't my point. My point was that they allow a fast recoupment of capital costs, much like the Alberta government and the "tar" sands you were criticizing. Norway is no different in their policies, yet when Alberta does it you call it "subsidies" (which suits your horrible and disgusting leftist narrative) and when Norway does it, you just ignore it. This is from the link, that YOU provided, perhaps you should actually read what you link to.

Norway allows producers relatively quick recovery of their capital costs with a six-year depreciation schedule for tax purposes (quicker than the U.S. federal government and Alaska allow in corporate income taxes, but slower than Alaska allows as a deduction against its production tax). In addition, companies also can write off from the 50 percent offshore production tax an extra 30 percent of their investment spread over four years - essentially a tax credit for uplift investment. Alaska producers can earn tax credits of 20 percent to 40 percent for similar capital expenditures.

The high tax rate, plus the additional investment credit, means that for every dollar a producer invests in Norway, it saves 93 cents on its taxes - pretty similar to the total tax break allowed by the U.S. and Alaska tax codes.

You must like this one though: 28% tax on land based profits, and 50% tax on offshore oil profits - cool, maybe Harper will do that eh?

I am all for this if we finally find the gonads and drill off-shore BC. Let's do it! Set up a crown corp with this same tax regime, and then drill off shore, like Norway. Tell all of the nuts, cowards and idiots that cry and whine constantly, to shut the hell up, and move somewhere else. What a glorious day that would be.

Oops, no, he likes 12% + loopholes and subsidies = diddly.

Yes, diddly. That's all we get. See, it's this kind of massive stupid fibbing, only believed by naïve ignorant bozos and others who don't understand basic economics, that really just hurts you more than helps. No one with a brain is going to believe something this stupid, so why bother writing it? It just makes you look even worse, and just adds to the long list of other stupid fibs you've told here. Why not just stick to the truth, for once?!! Why is that so hard for you?

Oh, and if you read the story, Redford forecast a $6 billion deficit for 2014. It will possibly be a little smaller as they cut back, playing scrooge with seniors drug benefits etc.

Yeah I know it's $6 billion, that's extremely old news - a year in fact. The OP stated that the deficit is forecast for $3.5 billion, and then just linked to another stupid story about stupid Norway. Where is the $3.5 billion number coming from? Yet another fib? Par for the course with you guys.