Posts
Oil executives attending a Calgary area Conservative constituency meeting told the congregation that nuclear power for the Tar Sands was a done deal.
We can hope they use Canadian technology for this but, I wouldn't count on it.
cyberclark@shaw.ca
John Clark
Friday, January 19, 2007
Coal Bed part of Conservative shell game in motion.
Sherritt partnered with Fording Coal of Alberta. In the deal, Fording coal kept the metallurgical (hard) coal and Sherritt, owned by the Ontario Teachers Association Pension Fund took control of all of the heating coal.
Fording goes on to build power plants and buys the coal from an outside source (Sherritt). There is no price control on this coal, all the market well bare. No matter what they pay for coal they will be able to rip it out of our pockets in electricity charges.
In a more recent scenario Sherritt will mine and sell coal to the Oil Companies. The Oil companies will agree on what ever price is asked because it goes onto their production costs hence is not considered a loss. There is no jurisdiction, laws or government agencies in place in this province to stop the exploitation of this commodity and petroleum expenditures are not closely audited. We end up with nothing; a hole in the ground.
Hence, the people of Alberta do not receive any royalty payments until the cost of this coal. Other things like construction and travel are considered when figuring in start up and production costs.
As it stands at this moment, the Ontario Teachers Pension fund stands to make more money per barrel on Alberta’s tar sands than do the people of Alberta! And even worse, it comes off the top, long before we see our pennies.
We need a Government that will take proper stewardship of our resources seriously and undertake to see we get a fair market value for our resource which are not renewable.
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca.
Fording goes on to build power plants and buys the coal from an outside source (Sherritt). There is no price control on this coal, all the market well bare. No matter what they pay for coal they will be able to rip it out of our pockets in electricity charges.
In a more recent scenario Sherritt will mine and sell coal to the Oil Companies. The Oil companies will agree on what ever price is asked because it goes onto their production costs hence is not considered a loss. There is no jurisdiction, laws or government agencies in place in this province to stop the exploitation of this commodity and petroleum expenditures are not closely audited. We end up with nothing; a hole in the ground.
Hence, the people of Alberta do not receive any royalty payments until the cost of this coal. Other things like construction and travel are considered when figuring in start up and production costs.
As it stands at this moment, the Ontario Teachers Pension fund stands to make more money per barrel on Alberta’s tar sands than do the people of Alberta! And even worse, it comes off the top, long before we see our pennies.
We need a Government that will take proper stewardship of our resources seriously and undertake to see we get a fair market value for our resource which are not renewable.
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Stelmach side steps royality hearings.
Stelmach dodges honest royalty hearings! There will be none until they are safely or not so safe behind still another election.
Private memo to Ed Stelmach January 6/07
“I am going to post the oil revenues (based on production figures) in advance of Mr. Oberg’s hearings around the country”
MP meeting called for inCalgary.
Media release (radio) in Calgary January 18/07
“Calgary meeting of MPs turned out very good says spoksman” etc. “a good chance of an election call in the spring” (copies available upon request)
The Conservatives have decided to treat the promise for a royalty review as they treated the health care before the last election. Their plan is obviously to delay the public review until after they receive a new mandate (as is their hope) at which point they will give a token increase to royalties (arguably nothing) and surround you with their BS.
Their track record of lies, misdirection is going forward under Stelmach with no changes.
Same old crew; same old games!
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca
Private memo to Ed Stelmach January 6/07
“I am going to post the oil revenues (based on production figures) in advance of Mr. Oberg’s hearings around the country”
MP meeting called for inCalgary.
Media release (radio) in Calgary January 18/07
“Calgary meeting of MPs turned out very good says spoksman” etc. “a good chance of an election call in the spring” (copies available upon request)
The Conservatives have decided to treat the promise for a royalty review as they treated the health care before the last election. Their plan is obviously to delay the public review until after they receive a new mandate (as is their hope) at which point they will give a token increase to royalties (arguably nothing) and surround you with their BS.
Their track record of lies, misdirection is going forward under Stelmach with no changes.
Same old crew; same old games!
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca
Friday, January 12, 2007
Nuclear power in Alberta?
Yes, I think so; an excellent article by the CBC.
Mind you the CBC is talking Candu reactors where the oil patch consider the biggest buck back into their pockets! They are more in line with an Iran or India reactor. Oil companies contrary to the advertisment do not support Canada or Alberta. They look out for them selves and, if there is a little, very little coin left over they will pass it along in the game of goodness.
World source:
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca
Mind you the CBC is talking Candu reactors where the oil patch consider the biggest buck back into their pockets! They are more in line with an Iran or India reactor. Oil companies contrary to the advertisment do not support Canada or Alberta. They look out for them selves and, if there is a little, very little coin left over they will pass it along in the game of goodness.
World source:
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Harper turns Electrical standards over to the US!
This is evidence of how very little our politicians know of electricity and electric distribution; or is it? Text quoted in part from Allan Dane Msc Electrical Engineer,
Harper has turned much of the controls of Canada’s electricity over to the Americans! This done, with no consolation with parliament. There goes the farm!
It has come to my attention that the Hon. G. Lunn has agreed with the US Secretary of Energy that the Electric Reliability Organization (ER0) of the US Department of Energy shall govern electric reliability issues for all of North America.
It was stated, but under whose authority it was stated I was unable to ascertain, that this ERO would have the powers to impose very severe financial sanctions on any utility which failed to meet the demands imposed upon it by the ERO.
Directly related; Pacific Gas and Electric wants the legal right to adjust electric power costs without need to obtain regulatory approval. If this idea is approved, expect it to follow, automatically, in Canada since the Minister of Natural Resources has affirmed that the Electric Reliability Organization of the US Department of Energy shall decide all matters pertaining to electric reliability.
In Alberta and under the Conservatives the Electrical companies are allowed to write their own tickets. The EUB throws out increases for them seemingly based on excess profit expectations of the companies. Huge profits are not seen to be obscene they attract investment.
Under PGE's proposal, power costs would be tracked throughout the year. Then, on a specific date, rates automatically would shift to cover any differences. If electricity costs suddenly soared, a power-cost adjustment would transfer the hit to customers more quickly. But if costs fell below forecasts, customers would see rates drop faster.
As part of the proposal, PGE would absorb 10 percent of any change and ratepayers 90 percent. If actual power costs came in higher than expected, customer rates would increase 90 cents for one year for every additional dollar incurred for the previous year. If costs were lower, customer rates would fall 90 cents for every dollar of savings.
This means PGE can loose 10 percent and stay in the rich profit zone. It also means no one gives a dam about the consumer in this locked in market place.
Dig in!
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca
Harper has turned much of the controls of Canada’s electricity over to the Americans! This done, with no consolation with parliament. There goes the farm!
It has come to my attention that the Hon. G. Lunn has agreed with the US Secretary of Energy that the Electric Reliability Organization (ER0) of the US Department of Energy shall govern electric reliability issues for all of North America.
It was stated, but under whose authority it was stated I was unable to ascertain, that this ERO would have the powers to impose very severe financial sanctions on any utility which failed to meet the demands imposed upon it by the ERO.
Directly related; Pacific Gas and Electric wants the legal right to adjust electric power costs without need to obtain regulatory approval. If this idea is approved, expect it to follow, automatically, in Canada since the Minister of Natural Resources has affirmed that the Electric Reliability Organization of the US Department of Energy shall decide all matters pertaining to electric reliability.
In Alberta and under the Conservatives the Electrical companies are allowed to write their own tickets. The EUB throws out increases for them seemingly based on excess profit expectations of the companies. Huge profits are not seen to be obscene they attract investment.
Under PGE's proposal, power costs would be tracked throughout the year. Then, on a specific date, rates automatically would shift to cover any differences. If electricity costs suddenly soared, a power-cost adjustment would transfer the hit to customers more quickly. But if costs fell below forecasts, customers would see rates drop faster.
As part of the proposal, PGE would absorb 10 percent of any change and ratepayers 90 percent. If actual power costs came in higher than expected, customer rates would increase 90 cents for one year for every additional dollar incurred for the previous year. If costs were lower, customer rates would fall 90 cents for every dollar of savings.
This means PGE can loose 10 percent and stay in the rich profit zone. It also means no one gives a dam about the consumer in this locked in market place.
Dig in!
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca
Tories Ditch Third Way-NOT
Edmonton Journal Headlines January 9th-2007 "Tories Ditch Third Way"
The Alberta Health Act was changed to accommodate the third way. It remains changed.
The contract with AOn designed to hand off the health care system to Great West Life and Power Co. remains in effect.
Hospital operations remain under private management companies.
Consider the conservatives have come this far on lies and deceit and, it’s the same old crew.
I think this is still another way to get your eye off the ball.
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca
The Alberta Health Act was changed to accommodate the third way. It remains changed.
The contract with AOn designed to hand off the health care system to Great West Life and Power Co. remains in effect.
Hospital operations remain under private management companies.
Consider the conservatives have come this far on lies and deceit and, it’s the same old crew.
I think this is still another way to get your eye off the ball.
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca
Friday, January 05, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Oberg to do an Honest Royality Review?
I find myself saying the obvious. The fox is in charge of the chicken coop!
We can expect them to use this opportunity to further stonewall the general public by pre selecting and shaping questions and questioners. This will have the bright spring and PR to it that the oil company’s advertisement on water does. It runs “We don’t use all our water allotments” say they on public TV; “aren’t we sweet?” Glitz. Who gave them more allotment than the city of Calgary? Who explains that every liter they take is lost to us forever; not re-circulated as is urban and country use water.
Because the Journal article is locked I have taken a few notable excerpts to comment on.
Quote:
EDMONTON - Albertans will get a long-awaited review of oil and gas royalty rates this year. But when and how the review will be done are still open questions.
New Finance Minister Lyle Oberg will lead the review. His mandate from Premier Ed Stelmach is to "conduct a public review to ensure Albertans are receiving a fair share from energy development through royalties, taxes and fees."
According to a spokesman, Oberg is still deciding how best to go about the task.
Traditionally, the province has received about 20 to 25 per cent of oil and gas revenues. In 2004, however, the share fell below 19 per cent, sparking public comment.
End Quote:
The Journal further perpetrates lies in the 20% to 25% royalty revenues. A very obvious number game. (20 to 25 percent viz 2.0 and 2.5 percent?). Perhaps, not a lie but trying to put a very good face on a very bad and impossible situation?
The ground rules are 25% of the net after all un-audited cost and expense and the whole project has been paid for from their keeping all the revenues for years. As opposed to the start up time where it is 1% of the Gross sales until all start up costs have been recovered. Think! Guaranteed pay back for every thing they can imagine!
What risk? 25% of net and 1% of the gross at some point is the same number! Next to nothing.
Further lies are the idea that a small shift in royalties in 2004 caused the pubic outcry. Not so!
The out cry started when I published the actual oil revenues on Welcome to Ralph’s World. It is still there. We have been ripped off for years under the Conservative rule. Time to change!
Take a look and see what you think Facts as Given by the Dept of Energy-a Must Read
The Royalty schedules remain very wordy and deliberately confusing. There are no cost audits on the construction period. Anything goes and royalties, such as they are, are taken on what is left.
Also, Alberta owns considerable stock in the various oil companies which returns money to general revenue and counted for convenience with the royalty numbers. This is not royalties!
If this crew tripled the amount of royalties we collected we would still be the lowest royalty charge in the world! Oberg should address that!
The only thing that would give Oberg’s plan any credibility is to have the opposition parties represented on the panel with the view they will be there in an attempt to make the process honest.
Better yet; leave it until we get a new Government.
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca
We can expect them to use this opportunity to further stonewall the general public by pre selecting and shaping questions and questioners. This will have the bright spring and PR to it that the oil company’s advertisement on water does. It runs “We don’t use all our water allotments” say they on public TV; “aren’t we sweet?” Glitz. Who gave them more allotment than the city of Calgary? Who explains that every liter they take is lost to us forever; not re-circulated as is urban and country use water.
Because the Journal article is locked I have taken a few notable excerpts to comment on.
Quote:
EDMONTON - Albertans will get a long-awaited review of oil and gas royalty rates this year. But when and how the review will be done are still open questions.
New Finance Minister Lyle Oberg will lead the review. His mandate from Premier Ed Stelmach is to "conduct a public review to ensure Albertans are receiving a fair share from energy development through royalties, taxes and fees."
According to a spokesman, Oberg is still deciding how best to go about the task.
Traditionally, the province has received about 20 to 25 per cent of oil and gas revenues. In 2004, however, the share fell below 19 per cent, sparking public comment.
End Quote:
The Journal further perpetrates lies in the 20% to 25% royalty revenues. A very obvious number game. (20 to 25 percent viz 2.0 and 2.5 percent?). Perhaps, not a lie but trying to put a very good face on a very bad and impossible situation?
The ground rules are 25% of the net after all un-audited cost and expense and the whole project has been paid for from their keeping all the revenues for years. As opposed to the start up time where it is 1% of the Gross sales until all start up costs have been recovered. Think! Guaranteed pay back for every thing they can imagine!
What risk? 25% of net and 1% of the gross at some point is the same number! Next to nothing.
Further lies are the idea that a small shift in royalties in 2004 caused the pubic outcry. Not so!
The out cry started when I published the actual oil revenues on Welcome to Ralph’s World. It is still there. We have been ripped off for years under the Conservative rule. Time to change!
Take a look and see what you think Facts as Given by the Dept of Energy-a Must Read
The Royalty schedules remain very wordy and deliberately confusing. There are no cost audits on the construction period. Anything goes and royalties, such as they are, are taken on what is left.
Also, Alberta owns considerable stock in the various oil companies which returns money to general revenue and counted for convenience with the royalty numbers. This is not royalties!
If this crew tripled the amount of royalties we collected we would still be the lowest royalty charge in the world! Oberg should address that!
The only thing that would give Oberg’s plan any credibility is to have the opposition parties represented on the panel with the view they will be there in an attempt to make the process honest.
Better yet; leave it until we get a new Government.
John Clark
cyberclark@shaw.ca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
