Friday, December 26, 2008

CHORUS OF VOICES CALLING ROYALTIES REGIME A RIP-OFF GROW LOUDERN

Vue Magazine out of Edmonton

CHORUS OF VOICES CALLING ROYALTIES REGIME A RIP-OFF GROW LOUDER
Shannon Phillips / shannon@vueweekly.com
Eighty-four per cent of Albertans think the province isn’t collecting enough royalties from our non-renewable resources, according to a May 2006 poll. But the government says their review of the system—which they won’t release to the public—concluded that we’re getting “our fair share” from multinational corporations reaping unprecedented profits.

Alberta energy minister Greg Melchin says his department finished a review of the province’s oil royalties last week, but controversy erupted when Conservative leadership candidates Ted Morton and Ed Stelmach told reporters the review was discussed at neither caucus nor cabinet. Morton told the Canadian Press that the exercise had not even begun, saying his understanding was that the review had been shelved pending the expected election.

The energy ministry did not return repeated requests from Vue for information on the review.

NDP leader Brian Mason has since written to the energy minister requesting the parameters of the review, its timeline and its participants.

“Basically, the government is saying that their dog ate the royalty review,” quipped Mason.

“During the last election, the NDP was out on its own, asking for changes to the royalty system. None of the other parties would touch it, as both the Liberals and the Tories depend so heavily on money from the oil and gas sector.

“But now, there seems to be a growing awareness that we’re not getting a fair return on our resources—that’s why the province agreed to this phantom review. Given all the fog around it, we’re simply renewing our call for a public, transparent process.”

Alberta’s last royalty review was in 1992, but no significant changes were made. 1997 saw some changes for oil sands producers, but conventional oil and natural gas calculations were designed in the mid-1980s, when oil prices dipped to $10/barrel and the undiversified Alberta economy suffered, with thousands of job losses and a mini-recession.Oil and gas royalties are not just another form of corporate tax—they’re less like tax deductions on a paycheque and more like the cash paid to a landlord. Policy wonks call the concept economic rent: by law, non-renewable resources belong to Albertans, not to the companies that exploit them. Economic rent is the difference between the value of the resource and the cost of producing the resource, including an allowance for a normal rate of return on investment (profit).

Royalties are calculated in many different ways, so comparisons between different countries, states and provinces are difficult. But the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental economics think-tank, has demonstrated that Albertans are being grossly shortchanged compared to other jurisdictions.
In 2004, Pembina found that Alaska charged $11.60 per barrel oil royalty, and Norway charged $14.10 per barrel. Alberta charged $4.30 per barrel.

Between 1995 and 2002, Alaska captured almost 100 per cent of the economic rent of the resource, and Norway captured almost 90 per cent. Alberta captured just 50 per cent.Calgary-based EnCana—one of Canada’s most prolific natural gas producers—is one of the few companies that disclose their average royalty rates. In 2003, EnCana paid an average of 12.9 per cent on the Canadian (mostly Alberta) natural gas they produced. They paid 20 per cent on their US-produced gas.Low royalties means that Alberta collects the same amount of money from gambling as we do from conventional crude oil ($1.4 billion). Liquor and tobacco taxes significantly outpace oil sands royalty revenue ($1.3 billion on booze and smokes last year compared to $950 million from the tar sands). Add low royalties to the lowest corporate taxes in Canada (reduced this year by another $365 million) and Alberta is by far the most lucrative place in the hemisphere for American oil and gas companies to do business.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers says increasing royalties discourages investment. But that’s not what has happened in countries that have made recent changes to their royalties. Venezuela’s leftist President Hugo Chavez boosted royalties from one per cent to a whopping 30 per cent over the past two years, even charging back-royalties to make up for years of uncollected rent.

Foreign investments from Asia—particularly China—have increased. Only Texas-based Exxon-Mobil has refused to play ball.

Mason says a thorough public review of royalties would take the oil and gas industry’s disinvestment claims into careful consideration.“If the oil and gas industry is saying we’re not going to invest if you raise royalties, and if you look back and see that they were making investments with a third of the profits they are making now, then we need to scrutinize those claims very closely and decide what’s in the public interest,” says Mason.

Tar sands royalties are an entirely different Pandora’s box of complicated calculations. But the basic concept is simple: oil sands developers pay only one per cent royalty until they recover their capital costs—a scheme developed in the early 1980s and reworked in 1997. The one per cent rule was meant to give oil sands producers a helping hand with big-ticket technology and equipment required to strip mine and refine viscous, sandy tar into a usable final product.As production costs have declined and profits gone skyward, many observers are saying it’s time for a change—including former Premier Peter Lougheed. The man who first negotiated what the Pembina Institute calls a “sweet deal for companies” called for a moratorium on tar sands development and a renegotiation of royalty rates in early July. “[Albertans got] $2.85 from a barrel of oil from the oil sands in 1997. They got $1.74 in 2005,” says Amy Taylor, director of ecological fiscal reform at the Pembina Institute.“Keeping the decade-old royalty regime, designed to jumpstart oil sands production, when [the economy] is overheated, is irresponsible,” says Taylor.“At the end of the day,” concludes Mason, “the most important thing to remember is that Albertans own these resources, not the oil and gas companies. The smartest thing to do would be to capture an appropriate return on our non-renewable resources so that we can build an economy based on renewables.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Gas Prices hit 4 year low!

With the price of oil at 37.67 US Alberta presently keeps 19% Canadian which is 4.87 cents US and the oil companies take 32.80 US.

Based on 2 million barrels per day (tar sands and conventional) means that Alberta will get 9.7 million dollars per day in royalty.

Under our contract before the "new deal fair for all" came in Alberta would have received 7.77 per barrel US dollars.

Mel knight and company have given away nearly 50% of our revenue to the oil companies!

Using present day figures we would have received under our orignal deal 18,835,000 US dollars per day. At these rates that is 4.5 billion dollars per year that should have been in Alberta Treasury that is in the OIl coffers!

The worse is yet to come.

The "new deal" comes in January 1/2009 The new deal puts the royalty back up to our origianl 25% but the exchange remains Canadian dollars. I'm pretty sure we won't see it!
Mel Knight is making noises in the media about further assistance to the oil companies. In the new year.

At the same time they have legislation in place for the new year to make all dealings on royalty and literally any other business with the oil companies "secret".

This means we will not know of changes until we loose our services or are taxed to oblivian.

Having watched this pack of outright lies unfold, how could you possibly beleive anything that comes from the mouth of this Government? Keep in mind the recent helath care dribble.

To the PC rank and file I ask, "What in hell is the matter with your heads? They have lied to you constantly for 15 years and you just keep on taking the beating!"

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Ron Liepert-A rush to the US health care system.

When Mr. Liepert cut the universal drug coverage for seniors he said “Money is not the object”.

It is true; Alberta’s money has never been the object of concern for this Government! They are driven wholly and totally by a narrow view of developing the perfect conservative state. That is, a total user pays system in which there is little or nothing left anywhere as far as Government support. That would be the US system.

The only moral guide they have is how low or not the royalty and the taxes are.

After the major lies in the “new oil regime” how can we possibly believe on word that comes out of their mouths!

Ron Liepert – One man’s view of health care being installed in Alberta. He is putting us on a fast track to the US system whether he says so or not! People with a different view he calls “negative whiners” on the opposition benches.

There is no consideration given to the fact the US system is hugely more expensive than the Canadian public system.

In Mr. Liepert’s view, the only people that are concerned about what he is doing are the media and the opposition. Paying 8000.00 a year for a subscription to the Calgary physicians clinic "is one of the shelf". If you want to pay that, go ahead he says but does not entertain conversations about cue jumping or not.

Mr. Liepert outlines his experience in Los Angeles as a trade representative, described as a standard perk. He explains his son was assessed quickly for a broken arm but no treatment would be forth coming until the hospital was paid 5000.00 (cash?).

Sounds drastic don’t it. The fact overlooked is the Alberta Government would have covered him with premium (some would say unheard of) health care coverage while in the US. All he had to do was show his card.

The article also tells of his enterprise in setting up a day care centre in Calgary and his on going association with Jim Dinning who is involved in private hospitals and senior’s care centre. Between them they will certainly know how to rip taxpayer money out of the system to their own enterprises! Perhaps they are in line to pickup up some of the prototypical hospitals?

The article also dwells on Mr. Liepert’s success in building 18 new 3P schools. The article doesn't say the title of these 3P schools can be transferred to an individual or a company in less time than it takes to write this article. And, with the tax dollar (some of it) travelling with the kids now, you can say comfortably you are looking at the end of the public school system in Alberta.

Alberta Oil Royalty-Lies burried within lies


With lies like this how can any person in their right mind believe Liepert on his measured privatization of Health Care?
How can this crew be believed on any thing they say?

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Government outright lies are going to cost you!

With our dollar at 80 cents we are loosing 20% of our royalty in exchange. That is over 6 billion dollars of Albertans monies have gone into oil pockets as a bonus.

Today, Albertans are given a choice of a deficit or, do you want to pay more for gas at the pumps. Some choice!

On another front this same bunch of bandits is saying they will close rural hospitals and turn them into homes for the aging. This, forcing rural people into city hospitals for treatment.

In almost the same breath they say they are going to increase the costs of accommodation in these same buildings as a means to attract investment.

Soon enough you will hear the announcement that the hospitals have been sold to Conservative insiders for a dollar (After you have finished paying for conversations as required). This is still another big leap forward in privatization.

When Mel Knight made his lie public at the last election he put out reams of paper showing there would be increased revenue attributed to his "new deal". The figures put forward to the public includedlies about anticipated revenues from new production from new tar sands installations.

When the crunch came, the new projects were cancelled and his numbers became impossible. So much for the most expensive lie in the Conservative history!

The minster went public saying "errors had been made" In any civilized Government there would be resignations of both Stelmach and Knight but not in Alberta; they own it you know.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Alberta trashes seniors - Again!

Summary: Long term care facilities in Alberta are for the very rich. If you do not quality, find a ditch to retire in!


EDMONTON – Health Minister Ron Liepert today announced a new strategy for continuing care called “Aging in the Right Place.” The success of that strategy will hinge on the government acknowledging the reality of the seniors population in every community across Alberta.

Unfortunately, the strategy fails to plan for the construction of any new continuing care beds, despite projecting a need for approximately 750 beds per year over the next 20 years. The new strategy suggests this need can be met by increasing home care services and moving some seniors out of long-term care and back into the community.

It is important to provide these options to seniors who are healthy enough to take advantage of them. However, as the 2005 MLA Task Force on Continuing Care noted, the health needs of Alberta’s seniors in continuing care are increasing and becoming more complex. It is unlikely that these needs can be met without the level of professional staff and services available in a continuing care facility.

"Albertans need to ask themselves whether they want such a big leap into private, for-profit senior's care delivery. Senior's will pay more, and long-term services will be in short supply."

While increasing "options" seniors might have in regards to service and accommodation, the strategy is to increase fee structures for senior's accommodation, and to freeze long-term care services at 2008 levels for an unspecified number of years.

Also, the change in fee structure for long-term care and senior's care facilities in the province is unacceptable. "Three years ago the fees for long-term care increased by 40% and this year there was an additional 6% increase. Now the government wants to adjust fees again 'to encourage more investment.' Merry Christmas for private health care providers," said Eggen.


Information provided by:

David Eggen
Executive Director
Friends of Medicare
780 423 4581

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Alberta's new energy vision.

Alberta’s new energy booklet “energy vision” released today is like the other new fair for all deals they have come out with. Iris Evans made an announcement on funding the other day. The funding was not nearly has important as the by-line as in “another project paid for out of windfall profits”

After giving away 16% of our revenue to the oil companies in their currency flip it is all they can do to keep this province afloat! And, with personal bankruptcies climbing one has to wonder if it is afloat or not!

No more windfall profits Evans! Try for once to take care of the provinces business. Perhaps the oil guys will give you a week off.

To the subject of the new booklet:
“Changing energy consumption behavior of industry and ordinary Albertans.” It says. And
Strengthening the electrical transmission system by "identifying requirements, technical solutions, timing, and updating of the approval process."

The Conservatives sponsored an Environmental speakeasy in Lethbridge about two years ago and filled the forum with their own people notably one “famous” scientist from the US who said Alberta was on the right track increasing the cost of water and electricity. “It is really the most effective way to change things”

The announcement above is telling us the price of electricity is going to sky rocket in Alberta to a point you cannot afford to use it. And, with the encouragement of the Government. So much for Alberta’s Advantage!

Both Epcor and Enmax are owned by the cities of Calgary and Edmonton. You can't deal with the Government on anything or can you deal the power companies but you can deal with the city councils. Vote them out if need be!

This would suit Alberta’s scheme of things allowing more electricity to be available for export.

This, is a segway into the Bruce Power bid for Nuclear power in Saskatchewan. While the power is a good thing in my mind the plans are not.

Alberta announced a new power line from the connection of the Saskatchewan grid to the Montana border. Because it is on the Alberta side of the line, Alberta taxpayers will be paying for the power line of which Saskatchewan will be the major user.

By this time we all know what huge disdain the Conservatives hold the electorate in this province. You and I simply do not matter!

Perhaps some of you die hard Conservatives that are perhaps a little tired of 14 years of lying by these guys will rethink your ideals as you shiver in the dark.

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Alberta looses 6 billion of royalty by mismanagement

I don't think it is a coincidence that Alberta is going to be short 6 billion dollars in oil royalty.
When these turkeys reduced the oil royalty taken by changing the funds from US dollars to Canadian dollars we lost 16% right off the top.

With today's low prices, Oil is 46.79 US per barrel Exchange is at 80 cents.
The oil companies get paid in US dollars. Alberta converts that figure to Canadian dollars to calculate the royalty, currently at 19%

Considering only the cut we took in exchange at these figures Albertans will loose
$6,489,773,000 this year. The same number Iris Evans tells us we are going to be short.


They gave it to the oil companies what in hell do they expect? We will be told projects are cut, funding is cut and layoff is they key word for control.

This is nothing short of gross mismanagement by this Government!

Monday, December 01, 2008

Alberta's WCB said to be in good shape


Alberta's Minister of Employment and Immigration is telling us the WCB premiums will not go up next year, in fact, whatever the WCB is short in funding now will be fully made up by the end of the year.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Tar Sands not suitable for Carbon Storage program

What Alberta is trying has not been tried anywhere else in the world. On paper at least it should work. They are not filling oil caverns with it they plan on putting into the deep water aquifer below these caverns which is  not potable; poison.  However all the lower aquifers are not bad!  A few are flowing fresh drinking water and this Government fails to distinguish this.

These aquifers are under bedrock. The Carbon dioxide when pumped down should go super-critical that is, a dense liquid nearly a solid. In theory at least, carbon would be absorbed into the bedrocks to eventually make oil again. Throughout it is in a form that can be metered and measured.

To collect carbon in sufficient quantity takes a coal burn or similar closed environment operation.
In North Dakota they are taking coal, putting it into a kiln type container, heating it and adding a bit of oxygen. In this new air mix a flash fire is ignited and takes care of all the other air components leaving behind pure carbon dioxide.

The continued clean burning of the coal is used to generate steam for use in electricity. What is left behind is super clean and consistent ash suitable for other applications.

In this case the pure CO2 taken off is piped to Saskatchewan who uses it as a solvent to scrub oil off shale. They do not know how much carbon dioxide stays down there or how much is absorbed into the oil. Effervescent oil is a possibility.

On the plus side Alberta's plan can be audited. However, anything to do with an audible quantity in this province will probably end up in a General Accounts of Carbon shell outs. Scary!

There is about 5.1 billion dollars coming in now on royalty. Of this the Government has said 2 billion was going to Carbon storage. If it works in my mind it is worth it.

There is nothing in this scenario that allows free carbon capture such as that pumped out of machines or is released from opening the ground.

I can however see an application where the facilities that the gas that is used to heat the water for their process could be enclosed and that the gas affluent carbon dioxide may, just may be captured.

In all there are more questions than answers and the oil companies and this Government's secrecy does not make any of it easier to understand. Mostly they are so accustomed to lying after 27 years of practice they just find it easiest to do.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Alberta Conservatives mishandle the economy

The Alberta Conservatives has mishandled this economy to a point it is almost in the ground!

When they bundled all the lies into the New Oil Regime they took every precaution to keep the deep discounts given to the oil companies away from the voting public. A 50 dollar barrel of oil this year pays the oil companies the same as 58 dollars last year.

This makes Alberta oil the best deal on the planet for the people chasing oil stock. Yet, because of their secrecy these same stock chasers are trashing Alberta as being a bad place to invest in.

They ride their pessimism on a “New Oil Regime” that takes away the onetime windfall (royalty at 19%) and puts it up to 25%, where it was when all this crap started.

They are fighting hard to keep the windfall figures in place.

Keep in mind BC Royalty tier 3 returns 34% to BC. But, none of the bad press is spent on BC.

This windfall program has of 19% and Canadian exchange rates have turned 10 billions of dollars into the oil coffers over the past year and a half. That is what Alberta is short now!

Now, Iris Evans declared the economic slowdown within two years and suggested Wild Rose Country is entering a period of "figuring out what you can do without."

I think the first thing, is this Government!

Next, she tells us” $6.5 billion from the projected surplus in the past three months alone, leaving an annual windfall of $2 billion.”

Their policies have shorted this province ten billion dollars! Where does she get off calling the residual 2 billion dollars a windfall? It is a travisty!

Health Minister Ron Liepert said the public should prepare for some difficult decisions ahead on health care.

Ron Liepert’s claim to fame is a long list of privatization moves in industry. It is simply what he does.
He is using this self made conservative disaster as an excuse to cut services and will rely on the Capital Health work done on what to reinsure on health care. With a likeminded government in Ottawa he should not get much resistance.

"My hunch is that Alberta has seen its last boom," Liberal Leader Kevin Taft predicted Friday

This, coming from a guy who sat out the last election, let this new deal oil fiasco blow by without any kind of a challenge and hasn’t offered anything but mind dead preditions since. I can live without his comment.

McCormick (Political Science Lethbridge) agrees “It's directed at universities, hospitals, school boards and government employees who are thinking about salary negotiations coming up -- that's who they are talking to," he said. "They are trying to get rid of boom-talk and boom-mentality now."

.We are being ruled as opposed to governed. Decisions that affect our lives and the lives of our children are being made in secret and false information is being put forward. This crew, now beleaguered is moving to legislate still more decisions into secrecy

This Government in concert with the oil companies is playing a very dangerous game. Some 86% of the world’s oil is nationalized. That leaves only 14% in the hands of private companies. If oil companies were fair or even thinking for that matter, it would be otherwise.

If Jack Layton or Brian Mason come forward on a platform to nationalize the oil industry in this province they would probably get a majority.

Perhaps now, some of you will chose to get off your butts and vote. It is possible to have an Obama style win in Alberta!

In the US the Fed is trying to give out contracts to drill in Colorado in the Shale basin. To make their deal plausable they are saying oil will be 200 dollars US a barrel in about 10 years. Pie in the sky stuff, American style. They are offering a 2% royalty for 5 years after production starts then go up to a maximum of 15% there after.

Any number of people are saying this is a Republican move to shackle Obama in setting decent royalty rates. Sounds a lot like Alberta tactic.

Shale is more difficult to drill and will probably return less oil at a lower rate of flow than will a conventional well. There simply is not enough money in oil right now to go ahead with this.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Alberta Royalty - A brief comparison.

Excerpt from a CBC discussion.
The royalty agreements have been changed as is the Governments right to change them. In every case they have been changed to the advantage of the oil companies.

This "new deal" is no different. The new regime takes the royalty from the discounted 19% back up to 25% which was the original agreement. In the interim the oil companies have pocketed an additional 10 billions of dollars! Alberta, ready to curtail programs, is short that same amount.

The biggest give away, the change in currency from US to Canadian is massive amounting millions per day going into oil coffers that should ritely be in Alberta pockets.

BC's royalty rate is 34% so it is safe to assume that these oil companies are not running for lower royalty.

It is to be noted people on both sides of the royalty issue are saying that the Alberta Conservatives are basically inept and should be replaced.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Honesty and Transparency didn't work-Try secret!


Honesty and transparency Mr. Knight speaks of didn't work out so well so now, they are going to legislate it as secret deals.
When these people changed the royalty fund to Canadian dollars from US sometime after September of 07, they effectively cut our royalty rates in half.
These guys will never change! Time to get rid of them.

Syncrude new deal is no deal at all!

The whole announcement is made up of rubber numbers; more lies and misdirection’s.
The so called agreement restores the 19% to the original of 25%

Syncrude’s output is 305,000 barrels per day which returns $16,436,450 per day US dollars

Syncrude pays 19% Canadian Royalty which returns $2,560,799 in royalty.
Syncrude will pay the original 25% which is $3,369,472 at the start of the new year.

This produces a difference between 19 and 25% in Canadian Dollars of $808,673 per day or, $295,165,769 per year.

In order for this so called new deal to return 975 millions of dollars the price of oil would have to be 150.00 per barrel!

Wth all these numbers, we are still loosing 16% on exchange of which there is no effort to get it back. In fact we loose $787,108,718 on exchange alone. This is the closest figure to the numbers that Eddie is throwing out.

Stelmach is lying through his teeth. We should be asking why!

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Alberta' new oil regime is a lie!

Right click to save to your desktop:

Iris Evans is about to tell us our health care and service programs are going to be cut. This, as I had predicted earlier. Because of their give away, the Alberta treasury is presently short some 10 billion dollars of revenue having given it away to the oil companies. This drain is continuing at a rate of 4 billion dollars a year. Oil gets more new cash from this new deal than does the Alberta Budget!

As the above document outlines the funds on tar sands oil is now in Canadian Dollars. The two economies are said to be equal when the Canadian dollar is at 85 cents. Prior to the last election (Some time after Sept 20,2007) the currency traded was in US dollars! Mel Knight in still another misguided statement led Albertans to believe there was more royalty coming into the province.

It wasn't until after he was busted that the embolden Canadian $ showed up. Prior to that time the Canadian funds was in 6pt aerial; nearly invisible.

As it stands, we are loosing 16% on each barrel of oil. Do you see anything in this document that gives Alberta 16% ? No, you don't in fact at 120 dollars per barrel the oil companies are still paying 7% less than they were before Alberta gave away the farm.

Recently a BC official spoke in Alberta saying he was not going to go into the same energy regime as Alberta. What wasn't said is that BC are charging more than Alberta and have no intentions of reducing the royalty!

I don't know how long Albertans are going to put up with these lies and misrepresentations but when it becomes this blatant I would hope it is not for long!

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Health Statistics Pure and Simple by Stats Can.

The public system is still less expensive than is the private US system! It is worthwhile to note the US system is now making moves towards the Canadian system.

The health care figures are skewed because they are totaled and include health care expenditures by insurance companies plus the premiums paid by individuals and companies.

Depreciation on hospitals and properties are included but capital appreciation is not. When Alberta sells a 100 million dollar hospital for a buck, the thing shows as a loss of a 100 million.

A drug hot spot is easier to target on both sides but neither are able to produce a clear picture.

The medical schools are not friendly towards Canadians because the universities make more money bringing in students from out of country. A one point drop in a starter course in your second year will prevent you from entering medical school even though your MCAT is in the top 1 or 2% of humanity! Chairs left open for aboriginal people regardless of their scores is a good thing for the people but, who wants to turn your life over to them when they become physicians?
Finally, the aging population thing was a stat put out in the 1950s! It was a projection that those who had an interest in privatizing medicine took up. In fact, it never came to pass! The projections never came close! The seniors by and large are in better shape than the younger set and even these dolts seem to be catching on. Obesity is a bad thing. It is a constant source of discontent and effort by a large number of us. My body fat is runs about 17% which is too high but, damned if I can pass up the bagel in the morning.

A lot of things in our system sucks! You have voted in wall to wall Conservatives who are pushing us towards a private system by the manipulation of budgets. This what most of these numbers are about.

Alberta stonewalls royialty information

Alberta royalty information is to be kept secret for 5 years time.

The Extreme Alberta Conservatives have followed a plan that reduces Alberta’s take on royalty to match what they figure the province needs rather than what is ours. Their needs are askew; a list is patterned after their own hawkish ideals which say desperation is okay for seniors and the less fortunate. Kids are not chattel; they can't make you any money.

Alberta has more private schools than any other province. Our kids take their tax credit to school when they enroll and when you decide to change school you can't find one because the tax credit stays where they first arrived.

A dozen more schools are being built under the 3P scheme built and financed privately which the Government leases back. Now you have a system where the names on the lease can be changed to a private school and the tax credit you present can be eliminated through attrition while the actual costs of the school are picked up by you personally.

You are looking towards the end of the public school system!

Costs for infrastructure and social programs have been downloaded onto the cities and communities to work however they can. This was coupled with the Electrical power, an endless cash grab, which can be used to pay for the shortfalls. (A one cent increase in power returns multi billions to the owners annually) ‘More money for royalty reduction.

Now, they are doing the same thing with the provincial water supplies. First sell the allotments, then put it in pipes then charge for it. Having already sold or assigned most of the water allotments the prices for the water will be included in the pipeline (probably metered) charges.

You do not own the water in your dug outs, the water in your wells and/or your snow rain catchments. More revenue for the province out of your pockets, lower goes the royalty; this time figures kept secret.

All the monies made from income taxes, empty container returns and user fees are put into their General Revenue account along with the monies taken through oil royalty.

The Heritage Trust Fund started out to be an appreciating fund of reinvested revenues held in the hands of Alberta Treasury expected to be 100 billion plus by this time, was robbed over the years with the profits from the investments taken out and added to the General Revenues and used to reduce the oil royalty taken.

Now, it is in the hands of an Alberta private company Iris Evans has put her personal stamp on it saying it will be held to a 4.5% increase per year. All those millions above the 4.5% will be sucked off and put into the General Revenues and used to reduce royalties of the future – now to be kept secret.

As Brian Mason of the NDP says ‘They have more secrets than the KGB”

The tar sands companies have no agreements about who is to pay for the dismantling of their plants or who is to clean up. This will fall to Alberta who, will not have the money to cover it. Companies are being paid to extract resource from this province!

Every election they have won since Peter Lougheed left has been won on outright lies and misdirection. They have not show up at any public debates for the last two elections and are not going to show up for the next election.

There is a new political party in Alberta -a Small C; small L which is exactly what the voter wants in this province, a real alternative. When you get the chance, use it!

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Alberta should check viability of Insurance Companies

In the last recession insurance companies were caught very short in their reserves because of stock manipulations. Some were insolvent. This lead to huge insurance rate increases "to make up the loss" These increases never came off after the losses were made up.
How are we placed now?

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Alberta announces no funds to complete projects!

Tonight on TV Iris Evans, Minster tells the media Alberta does not have enough money to continue with all the projects marked to go! She sites the world recession as being the reason.

1. Mel Knight and company reduce the royalty from 25% down to 19% a loss of 6%
2.When the two currencies were at par, they changed the contractual funds in regards to royalty from US = 100% to Canadian = 84% a further loss of 16%
Alberta production effected: 1.5 million barrels per day.
The result is more than 10 billions of dollars lost to the Alberta Treasury.
Why?
Mr. Knight is reported to have explained it was done to give the oil companies a break with a view to helping them to adjust to the new royalty framework.

The new royalty framework is designed so it will not come into effect until some time in the next century.

Mr. Knight also explained Alberta is getting enough money from income tax to offset this figure.
Consider a 60 dollar barrel of oil is paying the oil companies the same amount of cash as a 74.00 barrel of oil did last year.

This is still another example of the irresponsible lack of management this Government continues to show.
And, the Liberals slept through the whole thing the last election. Think about it the next election!

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Oil price is up 15 to 20% thanks to Alberta Taxpayers

In time with the last election and par currency with the US, Alberta changed the funds for pricing on all Alberta’s petroleum agreements to Canadian dollars away from US dollars.

This change has added an additional 15 to 20% onto the revenue the oil companies are receiving on the resources.

Using today’s figures tar sands only; natural gas and conventional oil excluded.
1.5 million Barrels of tar sands productions would return $98,550,000 per day total US dollars. The gross take in Canadian Dollars is $84,989,520

The Tar sands rates are now 19% for royalty down 6% from the 25% original agreement.

Alberta now receives only $16,148,008 Canadian.
At the original 25% that would be $21,247,380 per day

Oil companies are now brining in 5 million dollars a day more than what they were a year ago. Alberta treasury is down by this same amount.

Considering the tar sands are profitable at 27.50 per barrel US their business seems to be a good one to be in.

I can’t say the same thing for the Alberta Conservatives.

Alberta; Why I take the time!

I do appreciate the inquiries by the various power companies, some not on this continent. I will continue to respond to direct emails placed to me through this site.

In answer to most questions:
You can thank Mr. Ed Stelmach and the Conservative party for my efforts. The fix is within their grasp. It is them, not me who are choosing the poison.

The Alberta Conservatives conspired with Ottawa and succeeded in shutting down a company I owned, The Dangerous Goods Training Centre. In doing so they effectively eliminated all the pension monies that went into the start up of that company. I have told them, when they make that money back to me, I will get off their case and, not until.

I am not evangelical!

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Alberta's New Deal-Good for Everyone is a Farce!

The Conservatives rip off of Alberta resource continues.

Today’s figures of 66.10 per bbl US and exchange at 81.46% the following tar sands
Numbers would be:

1.5 million Bbls per day production times 66.10 US is 99.15 million dollars US total

Royalty taken under our old agreement would be 25%, US dollars or $24,787,500 US

Royalty today under the Conservatives new deal returns 19% Canadian or $ $20,191,897.50 C

That is a loss per day to Albertans and Canadians of $4,846,055.
That is a loss per year to Albertans and Canadians of $1,768,810,221 Canadian. (1.76 Billion)

The new deal is a farce and the complaints against it are a floor show.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

There are some news stories running in Alberta today. Stelmach's royalty gambit is one and the other is Carbon Capture leadership urged. One is in the Calgary Herald the other in the Edmonton Journal. links and so on at http://albertathedetails.blogspot.com/

Mr. Boutilier Alberta's former bad guy minister of Environment gave up another nugget of information that demonstrates just how low our oil regime is:
"But we're still waiting for the federal government. Stephen Harper has to come into the sandbox," said Boutilier, noting that the federal government gets more out of the oil sands in taxes than the provincial government.

Alberta's Energy gambit is an outright lie; a grandee waltz between the oil companies and Stelmach's crew. Mel Knight, prior to the last election, changed our currency take on royalty from US$ to Canadian$ knowing full well the balance between the two countries was at an 85 cent dollar. Today at an 80 cent dollar Albertans are losing 20% of their royalty program through exchange! Add to this the current rate of 19% taken as a royalty rather than 25% as originally contracted and you have a total of 26% loss in royalty to the province of Alberta. Mr. Boutilier Alberta's former bad guy minister of Environment gave up another nugget of information that demonstrates just how low our oil regime is:

Transcrips from the CBC Blog
Josephjb wrote:
With all those billions of dollars being made by the oil companies as you say?, Why are some many companies leaving Alberta to other Provinces and to other Countries and why is drilling level down to a 10 year low?
Posted 2008/10/25
at 7:43 PM ET

Alberta Tar Sands is producing 1.5 million barrels per day.
Using 100.00 for an easy figure:
At 25% US the return to Alberta would be 25.00 US or 30.00 Canadian
30.00 X 1,500,000 barrels is 45,000,000 (million dollars) per day; Gone.

At the present rate of 19% Canadian $
1 barrel returns 19.00 Canadian X 1,500,000 is 28,500,000 dollars

The difference in the two scales represents a 16, 500.000 per day dollar loss to Albertans off their original deal of 25%!

Times 365 days a year is a 6.0022 billion dollar loss to the taxpayers of this province and is the explanation for the elaborate lies!

A 62.50 barrel of oil would return 62.5% of the figures I have put up.

The rates for the drilling vary on different depths and locations. They are deep and more expensive to drill and recover oil from than were the fields before they matured and probably more expensive than the greener patches next door.

The properties they have up perhaps don't look as good as the ones already offered; I don't know. It could be the oil companies are betting on the Conservatives not getting in again; I don't know.

Stelmach on TV said "I hear the complaints of the drilling companies and I can tell them I will look after them” Now, just what he did and how, I don't know. The Government documents indicate that oil is still priced US$

One thing you can take home to the bank and I'm sure the Oil companies are considering it. If Alberta raises the royalty rates beyond the 25% deal, other jurisdictions will have to follow suit.

As it stands now, the new deal brings home less to this province than the old deal.


Josephjb wrote: I THINK SOMETHING WRONG? Posted 2008/10/25 at 3:56 PM ET

Your are so very correct Joseph!
The oil companies are picking up 2.5 billion dollars a year more now, than they would have under the original agreement of 25% at US$
There is a lot riding on this new fair deal for all sham that causes each of the oil concerns to whine or posture in their turn.
Foremost are the oil companies performing in order to support the Stelmach government so they can hang onto this windfall profit!
Next the Success of selling this program to the public is where the Conservatives next win in the election is at. What is wrong is the whole dam thing is a house of cards built on lies and it is going to bite them in the arse!

Josephjb wrote:secretive deals being made of which Albertans are not being told about? Posted 2008/10/25 at 3:56 PM ET

Not secretive; marginal outright lies.
The 19% royalty showed up in a one day paper run in the Edmonton Journal at the time. It was pulled almost immediately.
When the publication came out on the "Fair Share royalty deal" "Good for everyone" It showed projected royalty dollars rising.
Two things were at play in the publication:
1. The increased royalty revenues were those of the anticipated increase in production and new production coming on line.
Although published as being part of the new energy deal, they had nothing at all to do with it. The graph captured public attention. At no point has the Government told the General public what the actual royalty prercentages are! Only Greater returns.

2. At the bottom of the graph dealing tar sands (I'm sure it is still up on the Government site) the tiny print at the bottom says "in Canadian Funds" This was at a time when Alberta's royalty was 25% New York sweet crude prices in US$ I challenged it at the time and published the letters on http://albertathedetails.blogspot.com/ you will have to dig a bit.

In the mean time the oil companies are playing their part screaming and kicking down the public relations path. Exploration companies moved to other geographical areas, not jurisdictions. Saskatchewan was and still is opening their tar sands in the north and their oil shale in the south.

Both are shallow well experience. Colorado and Utah just opened their shale drilling. Utah then backed out; too expensive. Prices made it a profitable venture. Likewise BC opened their oil shale in northern BC again, prices made it a good venture. Whether these ventures will be seen as profitable in today’s climate is something to be seen!

Alberta deep oil drilling into already mature fields is a lot of deep multi hole explorations. The number of companies may be down but the number of holes is probably up.

The point is, with Alberta royalty being lower now than they have ever been since start up and the New Oil Program at the top when hitting 100 dollars a barrel again will only return 12% it is definatey not the Alberta Royalty program that is causing the moves. The only people who are making hay on this is the Government spin doctors. You may recall he recently paid over a million dollars of taxpayer money to some old buddies to open a new campaign on how good we are to oil. Will those moves stay away? I think probably not although that does not mean they will come back either.

Stelmach's energy bambit is an outright lie!

Alberta's Energy gambit is an outright lie; a grandee waltz between the oil companies and Stelmach's crew.
Mel Knight, prior to the last election, changed our currency take on royalty from US$ to Canadian$ knowing full well the balance between the two countries was at an 85 cent dollar.

Today at an 80 cent dollar Albertans are loosing 20% of their royalty program through exchange!

Add to this the current rate of 19% taken as a royalty rather than 25% as originally contracted and you have a total of 26% loss in royalty to the province of Alberta.

Mr. Boutilier Alberta's former bad guy minister of Environment gave up another nugget of information that demonstrates just how low our oil regime is:
There is absolutely nothing in Stelmach's deal that could give this amount of money back to Albertans. In effect his election gambit was a charade giving the oil companies a further reduction in royalty payments while telling Albertans they would be getting more!
"But we're still waiting for the federal government. Stephen Harper has to come into the sandbox," said Boutilier, noting that the federal government gets more out of the oilsands in taxes than the provincial government.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Alberta pours money into oil coffers II

That is 3 billion dollars a year into oil companies that should be in the Alberta Treasury!
That in turn is 50% of the Alberta Budget!

Alberta bleeding money into the Oil coffers!

Alberta's "new deal" rip off as follows:
Tar sands production 1.6 million bbl/dayCanadian/US Exchange at 19.9%
Price of bbl oil NY US$ is 67.16
----
At current US dollars and our original 25% royalty these numbers would return 16.79 per barrelor 26.864 million dollars per day in US Funds.

At the current rates of 19% the same numbers will only return 12.76 per barrel. At US dollars this would be 20.4016 million dollars per day US less exchange 20% leaves 16.321 millions per day Candian dollars.

Alberta taxpayers are short on today's figure only 6.4624 million dollars US or 8.116 milion dollars
Wait until Iris Evans tells you she has to tap the Heritage Trust still again because it is her rainy day month.

This is Alberta's new royalty deal in action!

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

The New Royalty Regime is a lie!

Today, the exchange rate is 82 cents.

That means Alberta is short 18% on royalty on exchange alone. There is nothing in Mel Knights programe that will make this amount back!

This is the fault of those people who did not vote in the last election!

Mel Knight a Reagan without charm AKA Dolt!

Follow the header! Get rich or die trying!

Monday, October 20, 2008

Alberta Heritage and Trust Fund Robbed!

Iris Evans tells us the Heritage Trust has grown at a regular 4% rate which is good.

The Heritage Savings and Trust fund was initiated with a 3 billion dollar deposit.
Over the past 35 years, a 1 billion dollar additional deposit would be a close estimate.
If that account appreciated at 4% compounded quarterly as Iris Evans says, the account would now be at $87,758,778,068.54

87 billion dollars should be in there, Iris tells us there is only 16 billion. Where did the other 70 billion dollars go to??

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Alberta Health Care Direction is Questionable!

Here's an update on the U.S. health care appendix in "The Truth About Canada."

New figures from Washington show that the U.S. is now 29th in a list of countries re infant deaths. In other words, 28 countries have lower rates.

. In 1960 the U.S. was 12th.
. In 1990 it was 23rd.
.In 2008 it was 29th
. In 2006, American per-capita health care spending was over $6,700 U.S., more than twice the OECD average.

. The U.S. shares 29th place with Poland and Slovakia.
Mel Hurtig

Friday, October 17, 2008

Albertan's shorted 50 Billions of dollars!

To answer the questions on the Heritage Trust Fund:

The present amount in the fund is 16 billion dollars after all the profits have been taken from the fund over the past 30 years leaving only the principal in place.

Had that fund remained invested over this period of time it would now be very close to 56 billion dollars!

That is what the Alberta Conservatives have stolen from the people of Alberta!

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Heritage Savings and Trust robbed by Conservatives.

The Alberta Conservatives today announced we would loose a billion dollars from the Heritage and Trust fund because of the economic climate.

Such Crap! An example of misplaced trust!
16,000,000,000 dollars divided by 3,512,368 Albertans is 4555.00 each!

This is after 30 years of pouring millions and billions into it!

This Government has over the years robbed the Heritage Trust fund of 90% of its profit using those profits from the investments in their General Revenue disbursements. This leaves in the trust most of the actual deposits.

In effect our Heritage and Savings Trust Fund has not only been robbed blind but the misappropriated funds have been used to reduce royalty rates on the tar sands! A double hit for Albertan losses!

Why Albertans persist in backing this crew is beyond me! Is it a religious; cult relationship? Or, more than likely Albertans are just poorly informed and stupid.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Tax vx. Cap-and Trade- Dion wins!

Tax vs. Cap-and-Trade
Note: The New York Times’ Nov. 2, 2007 on-line piece, The Real Climate Debate: To Cap or to Tax?, is a superb primer on the carbon-pricing debate. CTC’s Charles Komanoff is quoted for the carbon tax side. In addition, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer presented an excellent series of conversations about possible approaches to deal with global climate change. CTC’s Dan Rosenblum presented the carbon tax side in an April 11, 2007 interview.
CTC regards carbon taxes as superior to carbon cap-and-trade systems for six fundamental reasons:
1. Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will aggravate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.

2. Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.

3. Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.

4. Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.

5. Carbon taxes address emissions of carbon from every sector, whereas cap-and-trade systems discussed to date have only targeted the electricity industry, which accounts for less than 40% of emissions.

6. Carbon tax revenues can be returned to the public through dividends or progressive tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.
1.

Carbon Taxes Will Lend Predictability to Energy Prices. With carbon taxes ramped up through a multi-year phase-in, future energy and power prices can be predicted with a reasonable degree of confidence well ahead of time. This will make it possible for literally millions of energy-critical decisions — from the design of new electricity generating plants to the purchase of the family car to the materials used in commercial airframes — to be made with full cognizance of carbon-appropriate price signals. In contrast, a cap-and-trade program will exacerbate the volatility of energy prices since the price of carbon allowances will fluctuate as weather and economic factors affect the demand for energy. The vaunted advantage of cap-and-trade — that future levels of carbon emissions can be known ahead of time — is mostly notional, moreover, since most cap-and-trade systems under discussion include a "safety-valve" for auctioning off additional carbon allowances if the price of allowances exceeds a predetermined level. And even certainty in future emission levels is of questionable value, since there is no agreed-upon trajectory of emissions for achieving climate stability and preventing disaster. The real target for which the U.S. must aim is to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible, and then more.

Carbon Taxes Will Provide Quicker Results. The taxes themselves can be designed and adopted quickly and fairly. Cap-and-trade systems, by contrast, are devilishly complex and will take years to develop and implement. Thorny issues must be addressed intellectually and resolved politically; the proper level of the cap, timing, allowance allocations, certification procedures, standards for use of offsets, penalties, regional conflicts, the inevitable requests for exceptions by affected parties and a myriad of other complex issues must all be resolved before cap-and-trade systems can be implemented. During this time, polluters will continue to emit carbon with no cost consequences.

Carbon Taxes Are Transparent and Are Easier to Understand than Cap-and-Trade. A carbon tax is transparent and easy to understand; the government simply imposes a tax per ton of carbon emitted, which is easily translated into a tax per kWh of electricity, gallon of gasoline or therm of natural gas. By contrast, the prices for carbon set under a cap-and-trade system will vary with market fluctuations and be impossible even for big business (let alone small businesses or consumers) to predict. A cap-and-trade system will require a complex and difficult to understand market structure in order to balance the many competing interests and ensure that the trading system minimizes abuse and maximizes real carbon reductions.
A Carbon Tax’s Simplicity Inoculates it Against the Perverse Incentives and Potential for Profiteering that Will Accompany Cap-and-Trade. In contrast to the simple and straightforward process of implementing a carbon tax, the protracted negotiations necessary to implement a cap-and-trade system will provide constant opportunities for the fossil fuel industry and other invested parties to shape a system that maximizes their financial self-interests as opposed to an economically efficient system that maximizes societal well-being. If allowances are allocated based on some type of baseline reflecting past pollution (which has been the practice with NOx and SO2trading programs), rather than being auctioned, polluters will have perverse incentives to maximize emissions before the cap-and-trade system goes into effect in order to "earn" those pollution rights. (The voluntary carbon cap-and-trade system currently operating has already been criticized for questionable offsets that have produced huge profits but little environmental benefit. See Outsize Profits, and Questions, in Effort to Cut Warming Gases, New York Times, Dec. 21, 2006.)
Carbon Taxes Address All Sectors and Activities Producing Carbon Emissions. Carbon taxes target carbon emissions in all sectors — energy, industry and transportation — whereas at least some cap-and-trade proposals are limited to the electric industry. It would be unwise to ignore the non-electricity sectors that account for 60% of U.S. CO2 emissions.
Carbon Taxes Can Produce a Far More Equitable Result than Cap-and-Trade. As discussed in our Issue Paper, Managing the Impacts, carbon tax revenues can be returned through dividends or can be used to fund progressive tax-shifting to reduce regressive payroll or sales taxes. The costs of cap-and-trade systems, both implementation and the costs incurred as more expensive technologies replace older and less expensive coal-fired combustion, are far more likely to be imposed upon consumers with less possibility of rebating or tax-shifting. Moreover, because cap-and-trade relies on market participants to determine a fair price for carbon allowances on an ongoing basis, it could easily devolve into a self-perpetuating province of lawyers, economists, lobbyists and other market participants bent on maximizing their profits on each cap-and-trade transaction. As Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. stated in his Jan. 24, 2007 Wall Street Journal "Business World" column (subscription only):

General Electric, DuPont, Alcoa, Caterpillar and other industrial pigpens this week endorsed cap-and-trade limits on carbon dioxide, which would turn their established habit of using the atmosphere as a free waste disposal into a property right, worth billions. Talk about a low-hanging fruit. They are accustomed to treating carbon dumping as a gimme. Now they’d at least be in a position to get paid for dumping less.

The dollars that will be funneled into making the market work could be better spent reducing regressive taxes, protecting poorer households and/or helping consumers use less energy.
* * *
Addenda
The "emissions certainty" touted by cap-and-trade supporters was recently put in perspective by the Financial Times: "[Carbon cap-and-trade systems] fix the amount of carbon abated, not its price. Getting the amount of emissions a little bit wrong in any year would hardly upset the global climate. But excessive volatility or unduly high prices of quotas on carbon emissions might disrupt the economy severely. [Carbon] taxes create needed certainty about prices, while markets in emission quotas [i.e., cap-and-trade systems] create unnecessary certainty about the short-term quantity of emissions." Financial Times, Carbon Markets Create a Muddle, April 26, 2007.

Note these two developments in the cap vs. tax debate last May:
First, CTC co-director Charles Komanoff examined the unsettling environmental politics behind cap-and-trade systems in a May 22, 2007 piece in Gristmill, while also debunking climate crisis denial from Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn. Environmental Defense posted a response, also in Gristmill. Our rejoinder to Environmental Defense can also be found in Gristmill. The full discussion is here on our blog. (In Feb. 2007, Gristmill also carried Environmental Defense’s argument against carbon taxing, and CTC’s rebuttal.)

Second, the Los Angeles Times ran a superb and comprehensive (1,600 words) editorial during the 2007 Memorial Day weekend, Time for a Carbon Tax. Under the banner, "A carbon tax is the best, cheapest and most efficient way to combat cataclysmic climate change," the editorial delivers a point-by-point refutation of arguments for settling for a carbon cap-and trade system. Here are key excerpts:

[F]or all its benefits, cap-and-trade still isn’t the most effective or efficient approach [for reducing carbon emissions]. That distinction goes to … a carbon tax. While cap-and-trade creates opportunities for cheating, leads to unpredictable fluctuations in energy prices and does nothing to offset high power costs for consumers, carbon taxes can be structured to sidestep all those problems while providing a more reliable market incentive to produce clean-energy technology.

To understand the drawbacks of cap-and-trade, one has to look not only at the successful U.S. acid rain program but the failed European Emissions Trading Scheme, the first phase of which started in January 2005. European Union members each developed emissions goals, then passed out credits to polluters. Yet for a variety of reasons, the initial cap was set so high that the polluters fell under it without making any reductions at all. The Europeans are working to improve the scheme in the next phase, but their chances of success aren’t good.

One reason is the power of lobbyists. In Europe. as in the U.S., special interests have a way of warping the political process so that, for example, a corporation generous with its campaign contributions might win an excessive number of credits. It’s also very easy in many European countries to cheat; because there aren’t strong agencies to monitor and verify emissions, companies or utilities can pretend they’re cleaner than they are.

The latter problem might be avoided in the U.S. by beefing up the Environmental Protection Agency. But there’s reason to suspect that many of the corporate interests pushing for a federal cap-and-trade program are hoping for a seat at the table when credits are passed out, and they will doubtless fudge numbers to maximize their credits; some companies stand to make a great deal of money under a trading system. Also hoping to profit, honestly or not, would be carbon traders. Large financial institutions would jump into the exchange to collect commissions on carbon trades, just as they do with crude oil and wheat. This presents opportunities for Enron-style market manipulation.

Cap-and-trade would also have a nasty effect on consumers’ power bills. Say there’s a very hot summer week in California. Utilities would have to shovel more coal to produce more juice, causing their emissions to rise sharply. To offset the carbon, they would have to buy more credits, and the heavy demand would cause credit prices to skyrocket. The utilities would then pass those costs on to their customers, meaning that power bills might vary sharply from one month to the next.

That kind of price volatility, which has been endemic to both the American and European cap-and-trade systems, doesn’t just hurt consumers. It actually discourages innovation, because in times when power demand is low, power costs are low, and there is little incentive to come up with cleaner technologies. Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists prefer stable prices so they can calculate whether they can make enough money by building a solar-powered mousetrap to make up for the cost of producing it.

Carbon taxes avoid all that. A carbon tax simply imposes a tax for polluting based on the amount emitted, thus encouraging polluters to clean up and entrepreneurs to come up with alternatives. The tax is constant and predictable. It doesn’t require the creation of a new energy trading market, and it can be collected by existing state and federal agencies. It’s straightforward and much harder to manipulate by special interests than the politicized process of allocating carbon credits.

And it could be structured to be far less harmful to power consumers. While all the added costs under cap-and-trade go to companies, utilities and traders, the added costs under a carbon tax would go to the government, which could use the revenues to offset other taxes. So while consumers would pay more for energy, they might pay less income tax, or some other tax. That could greatly cushion the overall economic effect.

http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Alberta lies lead the Water debates.

The export of bulk water has been a Conservative dream for a long time. It is not new stuff. Tankers off BC comes to mind out of hand.

In 1982 the Alberta Government received a fully engineered project from Weatherford Engineering of Alberta having to do with the details of transferring a large part of the flow of the Peace River south using it for limited irrigation though the core and exporting the balance to the US northern states. This engineering is as valid and up to date as the day it was put up.

Now, years later the Alberta Government is talking additional dams on the Peace River?Meanwhile the Alberta Government announced a mid province pipeline and in their spin said it would replace doubtful well water. Farmers in the peace River block were notified a few years ago they did not own the water in their dug outs and did not own their trapped rain water..

What is going to happen is the pipeline will go into Central Alberta and people will no longer be allowed to use their wells for anything unless it is on the meter. That is the way of commodity water.

The Fraser institute put up some papers on how much money we (corporations) were loosing by not being able to export water. It was a lot. The Conservative Party of Canada went to the Liberal dominated Privy Council asking for confirmation that Bulk Water was included already in NAFTA. The resounding answer was NO, it is not! The Conservatives said they would pursue it through the courts. Nothing back on that.

NAFTA is going to be renegotiated no matter who gets in. If the Liberals negotiate with Mexico and the US there will be no inclusion of bulk water exports. All three Governments are waiting for the elections to be over before entering into the Frey.

If however you turn Harper loose, i t is a given and your drinking water will become a commodity under NAFTA and you will be paying US prices for your water.

Canadians presently pay from zero to 50 dollars a month for their water service. This is doubled by most municipalities as a sewage charge regardless how much went on your lawn. I can see the probability of 100 dollar or more monthly water bills if water is made into a commodity.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Alberta Health Care in Jeopardy

We all know Alberta is on the fast track to privatizing heath care.

We are all aware the Capital Health Region did extensive consultations on what to de-list from services covered under the Alberta Health Care program.

We all know the list was completed and is sitting; waiting to implement.

Alberta cannot de-list services in the Health System unless there is changes made to the Canada Health Act. Harper will make those changes! The other parties wont.

Alberta's New Water pipelines

Alberta Conservatives continue to press ahead with the privatization of Alberta Water. Reading the PR articles listed would have you believe there is a huge benevolent water program coming on board. This is simply not the case!

In reality the people along this line will not be allowed to use well water. There is a good probability they will not be able to use for free the water out of their dug outs. On the pipeline they are on the meter. It is only a case of when the other shoe will fall!

This Government paying 90% of anything means only the taxpaer picks up 90% now and the project is turned over to an insider at 1 cent on a dollar value!

The 142-km project involves building a pipeline from Stettler water treatment plant through Halkirk, Coronation, Castor, Veteran and Consort. The upgrading will allow communities to discard using well water of questionable quality for a better and more reliable source of water. Besides the obvious benefits to residents, the upgrading is expected to provide an economic development boost.

The provincial government is picking up 90 per cent of the cost of the waterline, which is the first phase of a long-term plan to improve water supplies in eastern Central Alberta. A second phase would extend the pipeline to the Hamlet of Compeer, near the Saskatchewan border. Future lines could feed the Buffalo Lake area, Ferintosh and other communities

Saturday, October 04, 2008

A defeat for Harper is a win for Alberta!

The Fraser institute took positions on the amount of money we corporations) were loosing by not exporting bulk water. The Conservative Party of Canada went before the Privy Council of Canada to make a case on the export of bulk water under NAFTA. The resounding reply to them was NO! Not allowed.

The Conservative party of Canada accepted this saying they would take it up with the courts. Nothing more on that since.

The Democrats in the US say they want to open NAFTA again. No matter which party gets in, NAFTA will be renegociated.

If bulk water is allowed for export it becomes a commodity under NAFTA. As such we cannot charge the US more than we pay. To get the most money for export (like electricity) they have to boost the amount we pay. Bottom line is: If the Conservatives get in at all you will be paying California prices for your water!

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Alberta Conservative Friends get rich fast!

RBK in Alberta wrote:
Posted 2008/10/02at 2:19 PM ET
cyberclark wrote:
Posted 2008/10/02 at 1:50 PM ET

The Alberta Government owned crown land in and around McMurray that was worth a fortune. Rather than put it up on public open auction they turned it over to an insider construction contractor to build apartments and houses on.
A year or so has passed. Has there been apartment and houses built? Do the prices of those units reflect the fact the property was free? How would you compare this new property to property in Edmonton and Calgary price wise?
******************************
No, things have not changed for the better up here. Housing costs are out to lunch and I blame that on the Government. The land, as you stated, is mostly crown land.
The Alberta Government put a stop to speculators buying up land years ago. However when they parcel that land out to developers they are squeezing as many houses into each block that they can, creating zero lot line, 2 and 3 storey houses, so they can build up and get more in.

Land costs for a developed lot are absolutely ridiculous when you take into account that the developers were given the land for next to nothing. A lot for a MOBILE home currently costs 100K and upwards so a mobile home on a lot currently lists at 250K to 400K. So someone is making a ridiculous amount of money out of land up here and I highly doubt if it will ever change.

With the recent two large areas released by the crown for development what I have seen to date does not give me any hope whatsoever those things will change. However, newcomers are helped out in buying a home by the company they work for but it still takes 2 incomes to afford those mortgages.

Those working service industry jobs in town are hard pressed to keep up and many businesses just close their doors due to lack of people to work. My home is long paid off but I really feel for those just moving into town and signing 750K mortgages for a house.

If things do go bad they will go really bad and then it will get ugly up here. That is why Layton scares most people up here with his plans to slow or curtail development.
Developement of the oil sands has to moderate to allow other sectors to catch up but if not handled properly it will be ugly.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Alberta Provincial Police are in!

For a while, Alberta was running the Sheriffs' having no legislation to support them. That went by the board unheralded. Since that time Sheriffs have been installed in municipalities opposite the RCMP. Another escalation if you like.

This announcement putting sheriffs into the vice end of things would be the capper.
Let's all welcome the Alberta Provincial Police!

Albertans' will pay 30 million more for water in 5 years.

Market Wire - September 30ATCO Group has launched ATCO Water, a company focused on designing, building and operating leading edge water and wastewater infrastructure and facilities for both industry and municipalities. ATCO Water has reached an agreement with GE Water & Process Technologies to draw on its leading technologies, especially in the fields of purification and advanced recycling.

ATCO Water, a division of ATCO Energy Solutions, will pursue water opportunities both within Alberta and internationally. ATCO Water will be headed by Bob Myles, who has held senior roles in ATCO’s gas, pipelines, midstream and strategic planning groups. It is hoped that ATCO Water will produce as much as $20 million in after tax earnings in as short a time frame as five years

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Harper following Stelmach's election book.

Conservatives no show the last two elections in Alberta the Alberta PC party did not field candidates to public debates.

At a total fear of answering the hard questions put forward on Alberta the Details and other blogs many conservatives resigned not wishing to run while others rightly assumed any dumb ass with a Conservative banners would get elected.

As it turns out the latter were correct. I wonder if this holds true for Harper?

Remember the reason they won was because the people who did not agree with them did not go out to vote!

Don't make the same mistake with Harper.
Consider his plagiarism speech. He took this from the Prime Minister in Australia one of the most aggressive slash and burn Conservatives on the map.
He knew very well what he was saying. He obviously though he could get away with this.

The Green Shift is not the NEP!

Mel Knight reduced the oil royalty to 19% from from 25% at the same time changing the trade from US dollars to Canadian Dollars! The production is running at 1.6 million barrels a day.

That extrapolates to 4.6 billion dollars a year lost to Alberta Taxpayers! That is half the provincial budget gone back to the oil companies!

Economies to scale shows us the probability that Albertans own more than a small fraction of the oil stocks. Most stocks by default are foreign owned.

Alberta is not loosing anything in this Green Shift! Had the Alberta Conservatives not reduced the royalty to below rock bottom there would be no room for anyone to plunk a tax on the stuff.

The NEP came into effect at a time when the royalty was much much higher, and the production was 1/1000th what it is now. The NEP did bite into Alberta's revenue. The Green Shift doesn't.

On the darker side, this Government will put every extra cent received from other business, every income tax dollar back into the goal of reducing royalty further! Something to think about when this crew tells you they don't have the money for it.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Your Alberta water bill depends on how you vote!

For those of you who have asked why I am so quite on this election will say that I have had a lot of my time taken up on the CBC sparring with the multitudes.
There are some real stars on the Harper crew, well stated and good reading. I will muse about some of the exchanges.

A letter from Iris Evans has been posted which explains the Government plans on 4 billion dollars spent in carbon sequestration, transportation and education. Nowhere in that letter does she say how she is going to pay for it.

The Conservatives reduced our royalty rate from 25% to 19% before the last election and lied about it throughout the election. This is coincidentally 4.6 billions of dollars lost to the taxpayer or, the nebulous General Revenues where this Government plunks all the money so it can’t be followed.

Does this mean the oil companies are going to pay these 4.6 billion dollars into the sequestration project?
Not likely.

Iris’s letter also touches on the money making aspect of Carbon Sequestration. Not dissimilar from the power lines the plan lines up now that Alberta Taxpayers are going to pay for all the start up costs and the construction costs of the program now estimated at 80 billion dollars in total (10 years revenue for the province) and the oil companies will pocket any monies that come in from the actual pumping of the carbon dioxide down hole.

More and more of the same old stuff but, this time handled by their million dollar PR company also paid for by our tax dollar.

For my part, I endorse the program. More than that I say “it must succeed” but, I want who pays and how broken out.

Alberta’s privatized water is not getting as much work out as I would like to see. Remember, they changed the rules of the water management group in the St. Mary’s system to limit who could vote on items. A brief search of the Alberta Gazette turned up the names of international food producing agencies as the new owners of land in that area and on the east slope of the Rockies where the water aquifer starts.
Consider Calgary does not have any aquifer water allotments and most the water is owned by Dasani water (Coca Cola) and the Calgary Malting company; that takes care of all the Alberta water. Remember the farmer at the Conservative Convention in Banff who was told he did not own the water in his dug out? Much more of that is going to be around!

If Harper gets in with his Majority there will be a huge increase in your water bills. The Government is asking if you want them involved. They should have asked that before they soiled the landscape.

The Fraser Institute presented studies on how much revenue was being lost because bulk water exports were not allowed under the Liberals. Then, the Conservative party of Canada made representation to the Privy Council hearings dealing with the legality of exporting bulk water under NAFTA and , the answer was a resounding NO NOT ALLOWED!.

The Conservatives acknowledged the decision saying they would take it up with a civil court but, I haven’t heard anything since.

Whether Harper gets his majority or not, NAFTA will be renegotiated to include items that Mexico and the US wants. Harper’s hidden agenda becomes more apparent and, Albertan’s are going to take a real shit kicking on their water if he does get elected. See details here

Albertans will be asked to pay “market price” for their drinking and domestic water. That would again be California prices just like the Electricity.

If there was a time for Albertans to vote other than Conservative this would be it!
And for those of you who did not vote last time, do so this time! Don't be a second class citizen.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Alberta Bedding failing Conservatives across the globe.

Alberta 3P builders sinking in Australia so they are giving a cost plus pure profit option in Alberta. These are the people hired by Alberta to build 6 new 3P schools in Alberta. Cut the funding to existing schools so they fail. Then, stick in your private club to save it. I am so very sick of Conservatives!

Quote locked article:
SYDNEY -- Embattled investment and advisory firm Babcock & Brown Ltd. said that Phil Green, its former chief executive, has resigned as a director of the company.
The move comes less than a month after Mr. Green relinquished the top job in a management reshuffle aimed at restoring investor confidence following write-downs, a last-minute profit warning and a share-price rout that forced the company into talks with its bankers earlier this year.
Shares in Babcock & Brown fell 17% Monday to a record low of 1.58 Australian dollars (US$1.30), leading financial-market weakness amid concerns about the future of Lehman Brothers and American International Group Inc.
Babcock & Brown Chairwoman Elizabeth Nosworthy said Mr. Green had decided that remaining a nonexecutive director was "not in the best interests of the company from a corporate-governance perspective or his own personal position."
Babcock & Brown announced a restructuring Aug. 24 as it reported a 30% profit fall and suspended dividends until it reduces its debt. The restructuring is effectively a partial liquidation involving asset sales, staff reductions and a winding back of many of the firm's businesses as it refocuses on infrastructure, real estate and operating leasing, areas it sees as its core competencies.
Babcock shares have slumped 94% since the start of the year amid worries about the sustainability of its model in the wake of the global credit crunch.
—Bill Lindsay and Susan Murdoch contributed to this article.
Write to Rebecca Thurlow at rebecca.thurlow@dowjones.com

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Alberta now finished privitizing all the water in Alberta

"Should a market develop? To what degree should the government be involved in regulating that market? Or should the government be involved at all?"
Alberta major move to privatize and export water is in place.

Mike Cardinal, minister sold large tracks of grazing lands across the east slope of the Rockies to private ownerships. With it went the water rights and, this track of land is over the origin of the water aquifer that serves most of Alberta. There were never any public disclosures of who bought this pristine land or, what they paid for it.

On the St. Mary’s irrigation system the Government first changed the bylaws of the St Mary’s water organization in such a way as to cut down the amount of people that can voice opinions or vote on changes within that origination. Basically only those people who owned property directly adjoining the St. Mary’s canal would be allowed to vote.

Again no public disclosures about who bought what or what were paid; All insider stuff.

While this was going on a large number of lands adjoining the St. Mary’s was sold by Mike Cardinal to the Agra Food industry. Some of the titles that moved through the Alberta Gazette were worthless as farms and perfectly situated for voting rights.

Calgary on the other hand has been quick to repeat time and again they have sufficient water allotments to last them for many years into the future. What they are careful not to explain is their water allotment is only for the Bow and Elbow rivers. Calgary holds no water allotments for the water aquifers.

On the other hand Calgary Malting and Dasani (Coca Cola) own huge water allotments for the water aquifer. – These people will be supplying the water to the City of Calgary.

The rivers are expected to be out of drinking water in less than 10 years as they are glacier fed.

I for one have been fighting over the years for a public owned water resource and you people who would not get off their asses to vote bare the responsibility of the total privatization and marketing of our water resource.

Monday, September 01, 2008

Alberta's electrical generation plans are primarily for export!

The Alberta Government finds it easier to tell outright lies and misrepresent even the simplest of truths than to face a fact and represent it fairly.
Yes power lines are being planned and built andyou are being told to pay for them and power generation facilities that do nothing but export power to the US.

Yes this Government is in charge of the electrical pricing and they will continue to increase the price of your electricity to make new generation and lines appear attractive.

And, yes you will continue to pay unless you get off your tails and vote in a new Government!

When reading this, consider Alberta’s electrical production is close to 12000 MW

There is literally an army of corporations with applications into the Federal Government to export power from Canada to the US. These have been granted and are not restricted to any one province or jurisdiction. Much is expected to come from Alberta. The export terms generally run 3 years with a clear option of renewing.
The US needs more power than we can supply; a perfect market!
“Generation of 350,000 megawatts (MW) of new electricity is necessary to satisfy electricity demand in the U.S.A. in 2030, according to forecasts and predictions of the government. Along the way, a generation increase of 80,000 MW to 90,000 MW will be necessary from 2006 to 2012.”

And:
“If the Government's target of 10% power generation is to be reached using renewable energy by 2010, a total of 10,000 megawatts (MW) will have to be installed at that date.”

John Clark

Friday, August 22, 2008


The only way to avoid this kind of stuff is to get rid of this Government and for most of you that means getting out to vote next time around.



Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Tar Sands oil being sold at fire sale prices

Oil price 114.00 per bbl US$

Under the original scheme Alberta would receive 25% or $28.50 per barrel of oil US or $30.94 per barrel Canadian at today’s rates..

Under the new rates they snuck in through the back door Alberta will receive 19% or 21.66 Canadian dollars a loss to Albertans of 9.28 per barrel of oil. This loss will continue to increase as the Canadian dollar settles back into 85 cents.

The conservatives have waved around a paper “new energy royalty” to take effect soon. But, they have made no indication this would be put into effect. It is just paper. Further the Minister has said as has Stelmach there will be adjustments to that paper to keep everybody happy.

Unfortunately the people of Alberta are not in the “everybody” category!

It is their intention to further reduce royalties as new production comes on board in Alberta.

9.28 per barrel loss at 2.5 million barrels per day production

The Conservatives have given away 232 million dollars a day or 8.46 billion dollars a year of resource money that rightfully belongs in the Alberta coffers!

The next time they tell you they don’t have the money, tell them where to get it.


John Clark.

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Devon Alberta Vandals

The vandals who kicked in the windsheild and marked up the hoods and sides of vehnicles on a rampage in Devon this past weekend caused 30,000.00 in damages to vehicles.
These 17 year olds will appear in court in Leduc on September 13. Names can be taken at that point.

Any one interested in joining a civil suit against the parents of these kids to recover damages please contact john.cyberish@gmail.com

Alberta privatizes water in the south of Alberta

Conservatives thrust to privatize water in the south has worked to extreme. Now they are looking at how to privatize the north. We are now entering a new realm of water barrons and the water wars of the old US west.

Dig in folks, don't give up your guns! Your life just got a whole hellova lot worse!

John Clark

Monday, July 28, 2008

Alberta will change the face of Canada.

Alberta will change the face of Canada!

Alberta is raiding the USA for their H1B workers.
What is a US H1B worker?
W hat is a h1b worker permit? Like a green card but faster and easier.
To qualify, the visa holders must work in a profession in which Alberta foresees a labor crunch. The list includes computer and information systems engineers and managers. Meanwhile, Alberta continues to under fund education in Alberta and drop out's rush to labour jobs oil patch related.

Stelmach can’t sell this province out fast enough by sending the higher paying jobs south on pipelines. They are advertising all over the world for bodies; any body.

Full spreads of ads in places like Namibia “Alberta wants you” Now the USA are starting to wake up and people are citing their government for lack of action in not providing H1B workers and green card workers with full citizenship. It is these same people Alberta is trying to bring in with the promise of full citizenship in Canada.

In a few years the oil will be gone and we will have a ruined landscape in place of what was once a resource. We will have a new and diverse population and no jobs for them, or us.

We are being robbed at 19% royalty and despite the run on jobs right now, our future looks real bleak!

So much for your kids dream jobs when they graduate!

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Alberta sells the farm!

Alberta is raiding the USA for their H1B workers. What is a US H1B worker?
W hat is a h1b worker permit? Like a green card but faster and easier.

To qualify, the visa holders must work in a profession in which Alberta foresees a labor crunch. The list includes computer and information systems engineers and managers.

Stelmach can’t sell this province out fast enough by sending the higher paying jobs south on pipelines. They are advertising all over the world for bodies; any body. Full spreads of ads in places like Namibia “Alberta wants you”

Now the USA are starting to wake up and people are citing their government for lack of action in not providing H1B workers and green card workers with full citizenship. It is these people Alberta is trying to bring in with the promise of full citizenship in Canada.

In a few years the oil will be gone and we will have a ruined landscape in place of what was once a resource. We are being robbed at 19% royalty and despite the run on jobs right now, our future looks real bleak!

So much for your kids dream jobs when they graduate!

Monday, July 21, 2008

Alberta Jobs are going down the pipeline

The Edmonton Sun and Neil Waugh in particular is one of the consistently best reads in the province! nwaugh@edmsun.com

Premier Ed Stelmach did a good job promoting Alberta's economic interests at the Council of the Federation meeting in Quebec City last week.
He fought off attempts by eastern premiers, Ontario's Dalton McGuinty and Quebec's Jean Charest, in particular, to pressure Ottawa to set up a cap and trade scheme for greenhouse gases.

It's a "pay-to-pollute" boondoggle that would transfer billions of dollars out of the Alberta economy - not unlike Stephane Dion's suspicious Green Shift initiative designed to win votes in southern Ontario at the expense of our industry.

Stelmach did a good sales job for Alberta's own greenhouse-gas plan, stressing repeatedly that he has the only program that is up and running.

Meanwhile, the eastern premiers were simply posturing for all those TV cameras.
The trouble with the premiers' meeting is that it's largely all greenhouse gas - or hot air.
However, what was happening on the home front last week was for real.

And many Albertans must be asking, "Who's got our backs?"
Clearly not Alberta's struggling Energy Minister Mel Knight.
Knight was tasked by the premier over two years ago to come up with an effective strategy to get the best bang for our energy buck.

During the PC leadership campaign, Stelmach felt the issue was so important that he compared shipping raw oilsands bitumen to the United States to stripping the soil from a farm.

Now it appears that Knight has sold the farm because of his failure to produce an effective value-added strategy.

So far, all the minister and his failing bureaucrats have come up with is a minor royalty give-away.

In the meantime, more and more bitumen is moving over the border along with thousands of permanent jobs and construction work.
Last week, three disturbing events occurred that highlighted and exacerbated the PC party's lack of will and direction.

There's going to be a $10-billion upgrader and refinery in South Dakota, of all places, designed to exclusively process oilsands production.

There's a ludicrous proposal to ship Alberta bitumen to Portland, Maine, then tanker it to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

And there's the plan for another $5-billion project to pipeline our bitumen from Nebraska to Texas.

Clearly, the Stelmach government is failing to promote long-term jobs in Alberta.
Once production leaves the province it may become problematic to get it back because of the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Scoring some political points at the premiers' gab fest may be good for Stelmach's ego - but it will do nothing to stem the flow of jobs down the pipeline.

Albertans need a tough value-added strategy and they need it now. Get busy, Mel.
Have all the news delivered to your door 7 days a week.
Newer Posts Older Posts a> Home