# Where did we go wrong with oil?



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Meet up with a few people I've been talking to in Norway and visited some travelers I met on the road. Norway seems to manage their oil money very well, thus creating a vibrant country with high standard of living. The lowest wage seems to be $80k per year.

We on the other hand don't have the same luxury and our government is in deep debt. Even though we get the benefit of USA's efficient of scale in consumer items and food. In all manners of speaking, climate, socialized healthcare, oil industry, population to land ratio we are very similar. 

So what went wrong?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Our provincial structure i.e. each province has a say in its resource allocation and revenue accrual.
Alberta has appropriated the O&G royalties and revenue, and squandered most of it away on wasteful regional public sector spending.
They do have a wealth fund set up, but it is tiny compared to Norway's.

This structure is also preventing us from building much needed pipeline infrastructure, such as the Energy East.
Stupid, indebted provinces like Quebec are playing petty regional politics and blocking this development, completely ignoring the fact that they are the highest recipient of federal equalization payments, and have been since its inception.

To create a Norway style sovereign wealth fund, we need a more federalized structure.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Goldman/Government Sachs ?????

Is what went wrong ?????


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Canada has 7x the population and 30x the landmass... and 30% of their population lives in Oslo. 
20% of GDP is from O&G vs 8% in Canada.

Sounds pretty easy to pay for at that small scale.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

peterk said:


> Canada has 7x the population and 30x the landmass... and 30% of their population lives in Oslo.
> 20% of GDP is from O&G vs 8% in Canada.
> 
> Sounds pretty easy to pay for at that small scale.



In population density terms, shouldn't we be better off? 

Have we fully explored and mapped out the natural resources in those 30x landmaws? Or are we still waiting for the ice to thaw?


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> Our provincial structure i.e. each province has a say in its resource allocation and revenue accrual.
> Alberta has appropriated the O&G royalties and revenue, and squandered most of it away on wasteful regional public sector spending.
> They do have a wealth fund set up, but it is tiny compared to Norway's.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the absolute trust in their government is what I cannot comprehend about Norway. But the decisions their government made are decisions I would make myself. Which is too logical. I am a firm believer of absolute power corrupt absolutely.


----------



## 1980z28 (Mar 4, 2010)

NL has budget for 2014 on 100 plus oil,NL will be in a hurt 2015,up the tax on a small tax base( population)I guess that will happen


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The biggest difference between Norway and Canada oil revenues................the oil companies keep almost all the profits in Canada.

Norway would rather leave the resources in the ground..........than give them away cheaply.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/su...ures-oil-revenues-benefit-norwegians?page=0,1


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Norway is obviously more socialist leaning and their cost of living is higher as a result (higher taxes) They also get more services from their government but this is not the point here.

Put political ideologies aside for a moment, and Canada has still blown all her oil royalties like a drunken sailor, while Norway has significant diversified investments around the world...


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> This structure is also preventing us from building much needed pipeline infrastructure, such as the Energy East.
> Stupid, indebted provinces like Quebec are playing petty regional politics and blocking this development, completely ignoring the fact that they are the highest recipient of federal equalization payments, and have been since its inception.


and lets not forget bc where pipelines are being stalled and may never get done ... all under the banner of "social license" ... which is what you bring up when you can't win elections

regarding sweden and norway, they both have big challenges ahead

in sweden, you are required by law, under penalties, to re-register with the government whenever you change addresses ... no thanks ... a little too big-brothery for me


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Don't think it's all good in Norway, Statoil has some serious issues. They're cutting jobs and costs, reported a net loss last quarter with adjusted profit down 25%, and it will be much worse in the next quarter. Norway's oil production has fallen every year since 2000, and don't think that it's looking better for 2015.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

lonewolf said:


> Goldman/Government Sachs ?????
> 
> Is what went wrong ?????


+1


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

doctrine said:


> Don't think it's all good in Norway, Statoil has some serious issues. They're cutting jobs and costs, reported a net loss last quarter with adjusted profit down 25%, and it will be much worse in the next quarter. Norway's oil production has fallen every year since 2000, and don't think that it's looking better for 2015.


Non-renewable resources don't last forever and markets fluctuate.. This is exactly why Norway was smart to invest their royalties globally for the future.

Canada by contrast blew it all on frivolous annual budgets, while charging no tax to Albertans because they don't know how to spend it all fast enough...

This too shall pass


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Causalien said:


> Yeah, the absolute trust in their government is what I cannot comprehend about Norway. But the decisions their government made are decisions I would make myself. Which is too logical. I am a firm believer of absolute power corrupt absolutely.


In a country with a smaller population, smaller area, proportional representation, and a well-educated electorate, the citizenry tend to be more engaged in, and therefore supportive of, government policy.


----------



## PuckiTwo (Oct 26, 2011)

OhGreatGuru said:


> In a country with a smaller population, smaller area, proportional representation, and a well-educated electorate, the citizenry tend to be more engaged in, and therefore supportive of, government policy.


The size of population doesn,t matter, it works also in denser populated countries. The emphasis here is on proportional representation. You are right, it would let people participate better in the political process. There would be less polarization, voters would feel that there are part of the outcome.


----------



## el oro (Jun 16, 2009)

Norway produces ~half of the oil that Canada does but has just one-sixth of the population. In order to get the same number of oil production per person in Canada, we'd have to get rid of two-thirds of Canadians or triple our production rate, which would put us on par with Saudi Arabia. On top of that, I believe the production cost per barrel is lower in Norway so they're getting more $$ per barrel than we are. We're not as oil-wealthy, relatively, but I do agree that we've blown what we did earn.

On the bright side, we've got massive reserves so there's time to right the ship, assuming Carney is wrong about the stranded assets thing.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Canadian oil is managed by Canadian politicians.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

It's disheartening that Canadians would rather make excuses than wonder what they could learn from Norway.

Typically the excuse is that Canada is relatively small, and typically per capita is our bragging rights. There's always an excuse..

0% sales tax in Alberta..


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

^ I agree that those are excuses.
But saying Alberta should have sales taxes just because the rest of the country does is not right either.

If Canada does indeed have so much oil wealth (and it does), _none _of the provinces should have to pay sales taxes.
Sales taxes is just an example - the real message is that taxes should be lower, whether it is income taxes, sales taxes, import taxes, etc.

It is true that Alberta has squandered away its oil revenue.
For the most part, it has been appropriated by its overpaid, profligate public sector.
_*Alberta pays the price of overcompensated public employees*_

The provincial equalization system is broken, too.
That allows provinces like Quebec to veto energy projects, and yet continue to receive billions in equalization payments year-after-year, which are derived from the same sector (energy).

Back to Alberta once again, the politicians driven by unionized public sector voting lobbies, are sucking the province dry.

_*Prentice prorogues the house, killing pension bills. Province won’t reintroduce reforms when government returns Nov. 17*_

I am sure our unionized public sector friends would agree that this was the right thing to do - who needs pension reform when you can just raise taxes. Or, just create new taxes.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

fatcat said:


> and lets not forget bc where pipelines are being stalled and may never get done ... all under the banner of "social license" ... which is what you bring up when you can't win elections
> 
> regarding sweden and norway, they both have big challenges ahead
> 
> in sweden, you are required by law, under penalties, to re-register with the government whenever you change addresses ... no thanks ... a little too big-brothery for me


How is that different than in Canada where you're required to update your driver's license, health card (if moving between provinces), etc?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

You're also required to update the CRA, brokerage accounts etc. You can't sign up for anything in Canada without a physical address (I've often tried)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Premier Prentice and two cabinet ministers are without seats in the legislature. They need to win those seats to move forward with legislation.

It sounds like the proposed changes to the public service pensions are reasonable and the unions are interested in discussing them to keep the pensions viable and sustainable.

_The province had proposed a series of changes they said would target four public sector plans’ combined unfunded liability of more than $7 billion. The changes would have *replaced guaranteed cost of living adjustments with targeted ones*, *raised the early retirement threshold formula *and would have introduced* a contribution cap*.

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees president Guy Smith said Thursday he was pleased the government killed the “toxic” pair of bills, calling the news a victory.

“We want to continue discussions about pensions.* Obviously our goal is to have viable, sustainable pension plans for our members when they retire,*” Smith said. “We’re also focusing on *joint sponsorship, where we have more control over those plans* without the political interference we’ve seen in the past.”
_

With oil revenues tanking.............Prentice has a lot of work to do.

I suspect a sales tax is in Alberta's future.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

^ the comments by this union leader quoted in the post above is precisely what is wrong with the whole public sector.
This greed, cronyism, and over-entitlement is endemic all throughout the public sector, coast-to-coast.

The smugness, disdain, and hubris is just oozing out....


----------



## Butters (Apr 20, 2012)

sags said:


> I suspect a sales tax is in Alberta's future.


Wild rose party will implement it


----------



## pedant (Apr 25, 2011)

Our governments are short-sighted, squandering O&G royalties to win elections at the expense of future generations. They clearly do not understand the pillars of saving  

The Alberta Heritage Fund was established in 1976, and was intended to take 30% of O&G royalties... but hasn't received a contribution since 1987. It's sits at 17 billion now.

The Norwegian Petroleum Fund (est. 1990) sits at over $850 (edit) billion.

Taxes need to become a bigger source of revenue. It's ridiculous.


----------



## pedant (Apr 25, 2011)

sags: The Premier and those cabinet ministers all won their seats in early November (all by-election seats went PC).




SheaButters said:


> Wild rose party will implement it


Pretty sure the WR would gut public services before raising taxes. Last week, they released a memo in response to declining oil prices titled "Say no to tax increases".

If we, as Albertans, want to continue to have nice things, we're going to have to start paying for them.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Causalien said:


> Yeah, the absolute trust in their government is what I cannot comprehend about Norway. But the decisions their government made are decisions I would make myself. Which is too logical. I am a firm believer of absolute power corrupt absolutely.


I think you just answered your own question. Maybe Norwegians trust the government because they have a government that is trustworthy. I can remember when everyone trusted the Canadian government.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

doctrine said:


> Don't think it's all good in Norway, Statoil has some serious issues. They're cutting jobs and costs, reported a net loss last quarter with adjusted profit down 25%, and it will be much worse in the next quarter. Norway's oil production has fallen every year since 2000, and don't think that it's looking better for 2015.


Current revenue from the petroleum sector is estimated to be at its peak period and to decline over the next decades. The Petroleum Fund was established in 1990 after a decision by the country's legislature *to counter the effects of the forthcoming decline in income and to smooth out the disruptive effects of highly fluctuating oil prices.*

And what will Alberta do if oil continues to drop?



pedant said:


> The Alberta Heritage Fund was established in 1976, and was intended to take 30% of O&G royalties... but hasn't received a contribution since 1987. It's sits at 17 billion now.
> 
> The Norwegian Petroleum Fund (est. 1990) sits at over $850 million.
> 
> Taxes need to become a bigger source of revenue. It's ridiculous.


$857 *billion* according to Wikipedia, as the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world.


----------



## pedant (Apr 25, 2011)

> $857 *billion* according to Wikipedia, as the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world.


Ooops! pure silly typo! Billion is absolutely right!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Comparing Norway to Canada and even to Alberta is fraught with all sorts of issues. True the Norweigans are considerably more disciplined than either Ottawa or Edomonton but Norway is a country of circa 5 million people, not a lot more than Alberta's 3.5 million, with a geographic area smaller than Alberta as well (though with more challenging terrain). Norway has a VAT of 25% (15% on food) and its personal income tax rate is 48%. Alberta has no control of its equalization payments that flow out of province nor the amount of income taxes that flow to Ottawa. 

In other words, Norway SHOULD be able to have a considerably larger soverign wealth fund based on those differences alone. If the ROC would stop sucking on Alberta's teats, it could be quite a different story. 

That said, AB has not been disciplined with public sector wages nor with its capital spending program (fits of starts and stops that cost inordinate amounts of money).


----------



## pedant (Apr 25, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Comparing Norway to Canada and even to Alberta is fraught with all sorts of issues. True the Norweigans are considerably more disciplined than either Ottawa or Edomonton but Norway is a country of circa 5 million people, not a lot more than Alberta's 3.5 million, with a geographic area smaller than Alberta as well (though with more challenging terrain). *Norway has a VAT of 25% (15% on food) and its personal income tax rate is 48%. Alberta has no control of its equalization payments that flow out of province nor the amount of income taxes that flow to Ottawa.*


I think this is key. Because of the taxation, the Norwegian government does not have to survive on oil royalties (4% of their spending is from oil money), and can invest the vast majority of it. Alberta has not been disciplined... because if you exclude oil money there is just so little left--the reliance on oil money is much too high. 

The are so few long-term, far-sighted projects that get off the ground in Alberta, because things that are proposed are studied when there's money, then scrapped when the money disappears due to inevitable fluctuations in oil prices.... then everything gets started from scratch again when oil prices go up again. I know we'll never see Alberta able to squirrel away 96% of oil money as they do in Norway, but small, smart tax increases could go a long way in creating some much-needed stability.

And, people always point to the "bloated" public service wages, but wages are high across Alberta...so I'm not really sure what people expect? If wages weren't competitive, personnel would lost to the private sector.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

It boils down to this AltaRed, should Alberta/Canada spend everything on annual budgets like a person living paycheque to paycheque, or should Alberta/Canada consider the future when oil reserves are depleted and/or worth less?

I don't know why people keep pointing out that Canada is not Norway. It's irrelevant. Saving for the future when you have money makes sense. Alberta has money. Their taxes being ridiculously low is just another example of financial ineptitude.

The politicians do what Albertans/Canadians want them to do so that is no excuse either.. Maybe Canadians need better financial education, because any Norwegian I've met seem to have a clue.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I am not disagreeing. I am simply pointing out the differences. 

I have always said AB should have a VAT (having been born there and spent much of my life there) but Albertans are entrenched and out of touch with reality. It will take a self-sacrificing gov't willing to be voted out of power for at least 4 years, probably 8-12 years, to eventually introduce a VAT. Then dumb Harper reduced GST to first 6% and then 5% when the sacrifice had been made by a previous government.

That said, equalization has to change as well. It is unreasonable for Albertans to shoulder a VAT just to pad the coffers so that even more equalization heads to Ottawa and to Quebec especially. Why does anyone think Prentice has kept saying this past week, no increase in taxes? He and the politicos know that would be the right answer but more bleeding to the ROC is not the answer. AB is caught between a rock and a hard place. Separation may ultimately be the only answer.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Why is it that only the _oil revenues_ should be saved for the future by the government? Money is money. Would we all find it acceptable for the country to have a massive surplus every single year and build up a huge "heritage fund" for decades, but still continue to tax us more than is necessary? Fat chance.

"It's a non-renewable resource and we'll run out eventually!" Oh so every industry that may eventually come to an end due to a changing world should be taxed extra in anticipation of the next century when they may no longer be providing revenue? Better start making a heritage fund now for manufacturing and automotive for when 3-d printing and teleportation put those industries out of business...


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

peterk said:


> Oh so every industry that may eventually come to an end [...] should be taxed extra [...] ?


Of course not. The issue is that the oil in the ground is a crown -- ie public -- resource. And it is fair that all of the public should benefit from it. One way to spread the wealth is to cut back on taxes so that folks not directly involved in the industry still get a taste of the good fortune. This is the way I look at what Alberta is doing. But another argument is that this windfall of fundamentally public wealth shouldn't just all be spent right away, but should find a way to benefit future generations also. When you save a packet, my guess is that you would leave some to your grandkids, right?

The bounty of the auto sector is not a public resource in the same way as crown resources.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Are the forestry, wind, hydroelectric, fishing, farming, shipping, and tourist industries being treated and taxed in the same manner as the oil industry for the exploitation of the bountiful resources and geography that the landmass known as Canada has to offer it's occupants?

I don't know the answer, to be clear. I wonder though...

Where's my royalties from Whistler-Blackcomb ski resort for the use of my Canadian mountains with my Canadian snow on it's slopes?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

My head explodes every time people think Alberta needs a sales tax,more money in our heritage fund,charge for health care,emulate a quasi 3rd world country like Norway....please. There's a reason we live here and vote the way we do.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

peterk said:


> Where's my royalties from Whistler-Blackcomb ski resort for the use of my Canadian mountains with my Canadian snow on it's slopes?


:encouragement: :biggrin:


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Norway a quasi third world country??? What a silly thing to say. Clearly the poster knows very little about Norway. IMHO, we Albertans could learn a few lessons from Norway...if it is not too late.

I happen to live in Alberta. Our biggest issue is 43 years of the same political party in power. We pay the highest per capital for just about ALL of our provincial services than any other province in Canada. Management by throwing money around/away and taking care of the good old boys...or girls.

Successive Alberta governments, Klein excepted, have been very poor stewards of our wealth. That is why our Heritage Fund is so low. Unfortunately this has been masked. That is why we compare so poorly to the Norways of the world.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

peterk said:


> Are the forestry, wind, hydroelectric, fishing, farming, shipping, and tourist industries being treated and taxed in the same manner


I think you're missing something. Mineral rights in Canada are nearly all reserved to the crown. Even if you own land, you do not own the platinum, oil, coal or what have you buried under your garden. The province owns them in a sense that they don't own a farm or the wind or a shipping business. Offshore and Territories mineral resources belong to the feds.

In BC and AB a lot of forestry takes place on crown land and the companies pay a royalty like the oilcos pay. Arguably these fees flow to the public purse and offset conventional taxes. They're not as rich as the oil royalties though. My guess is that Whistler/Blackomb is set up mainly on crown land any they probably pay some lease, although I bet it's sweet deal for whistler and locked into a million year contract.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

gardner said:


> I think you're missing something.


I don't think I'm missing it, just trying to point out the hypocricy using hyperbole...



gardner said:


> Mineral rights in Canada are nearly all reserved to the crown.


Indeed. So why not water and wind and beautiful landscape? Let us reserve those as well for the prosperity of the nation.


To be clear, I'm not opposed at all to mineral royalties. Just wondering how the discussion of "too much or not enough" can be discussed without trying to put in perspective how much a company should be expected to pay for access to Canadian resources of all kinds (very little it would seem if not oil or ore).


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I don't think there is much argument against oil royalties peterk.. What kind of alternative system are you suggesting here? That the corps pay up front for the entire estimated oil reserve? Or that we enact a tar sands finders-keepers policy?

Are we debating oil royalties? My question was whether we would be wise to invest the royalties or to blow it every year (in place of taxes) The low taxes and spending gets votes but evidently the average voter isn't exactly well informed.

Norway a quasi 3rd world country?!


----------



## PuckiTwo (Oct 26, 2011)

Eder said:


> My head explodes every time people think Alberta needs a sales tax,more money in our heritage fund,charge for health care,*emulate a quasi 3rd world country like Norway.*...please. There's a reason we live here and vote the way we do.


Would be interesting to hear your definition of *"3rd world country"*.

Norway:
- was a foundng member of the United Nations, NATO, the Council of Europe, the Antarctic Treaty and the Nordic Council
- is a member of the Eureopean Economic Area, the WTO and the OECD
- is part of the Schengen area
On a per-capita basis it
has the 4th-highest per capita income in the world on the World Bank and IMF lists
- is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas outside the Middle east
-from 2001-2006 and from 2009 - 2014 Norway had the highest Human Development Index ranking in the world
- has topped the Legatum Prosperity Index for the last 5 years
- OECD ranks Norway 4th in the 2013 equalised Better Life Index and 3rd in intergenerational earnings elasticity
- from 2010 to 2012 Norway was classified as the most democratic country by the Democracy Index

Quote from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Eder said:


> My head explodes every time people think Alberta needs a sales tax,more money in our heritage fund,charge for health care,emulate a quasi 3rd world country like Norway....please. There's a reason we live here and vote the way we do.


You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

quasi-
ˈkwāˌzī,ˈkwäzē/
combining form
prefix: quasi-

seemingly; apparently but not really.

My intention was not to offend any Norwegians here,nor were any harmed during the typing of this post.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Eder said:


> My intention was not to offend any Norwegians


Even so, my first reaction to reading someone implying that Norway is seemingly a 3rd world country is to question the writer's grasp on reality.


----------



## PuckiTwo (Oct 26, 2011)

Eder said:


> quasi-
> ˈkwāˌzī,ˈkwäzē/
> combining form
> prefix: quasi-
> ...


_Etymology
From Latin quasi (“almost, as it were”), from quam (interrogative adverb) + sī (conditional particle).

Prefix

quasi-
Similar to, but not exactly the same as; virtual(ly). [from 17th c.]
Synonyms

partial / partially
semi-
somewhat
sort of
supposed / supposedly_

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quasi- 

You are not saying that Norway "IS" a 3rd world country but by using the prefix "quasi" you are saying that Norway is "like" a 3rd world country - and....there you are "unfortunately" wrong. Sorry.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

I approve of Norway. Probably the country I'd like to move to if things aren't so expensive and immigrantion impossible. So let's move on from the hate and assume Norway is a develloped 1st world country.

The recent development with oil around $60 is interesting. It means both Canada and Norway is probably producing at a loss. I remember asking what happens once the oil runs out for the Norge. What life was like in Norway before oil?


----------



## martin15 (Feb 18, 2014)

HaroldCrump said:


> Our provincial structure i.e. each province has a say in its resource allocation and revenue accrual.
> To create a Norway style sovereign wealth fund, we need a more federalized structure.


This ^. Too many people saying it's Alberta oil, or Newfoundland oil, instead of *Canadian* oil.




peterk said:


> Canada has 7x the population and 30x the landmass... and 30% of their population lives in Oslo.
> 20% of GDP is from O&G vs 8% in Canada.
> Sounds pretty easy to pay for at that small scale.


And far higher production costs that go with the size.




HaroldCrump said:


> For the most part, it has been appropriated by its overpaid, profligate public sector.
> .


I'm sure the public sector in Norway costs a lot more per capita than Alberta.



Causalien said:


> The recent development with oil around $60 is interesting. It means both Canada and Norway is probably producing at a loss. I remember asking what happens once the oil runs out for the Norge. What life was like in Norway before oil?


Very poor.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

martin15 said:


> This ^. Too many people saying it's Alberta oil, or Newfoundland oil, instead of *Canadian* oil.


Says every non-Albertan and non-Newfoundlander. 

So people in my province put up the money, take on the risk, move here to work the shitty jobs, and have to live in this flat, boring, dark, cold province for the best years of our lives. All in an attempt to hopefully save some money and get ahead in life.

You, who stayed back home in the most beautiful provinces: Quebec, BC and Ontario, get to live wonderful lives without the awful hardships of backbreaking, soul crushing industrial work in the cold and darkness. Your "support" of the west is nothing but attempt after attempt to block the development of the oilsands. All the while your provinces already benefit immensely from the corporate taxes, federal income taxes, transfer payments, and _tourist dollars_ coming directly out of Alberta, and yet _you_, who do precisely nothing to help Alberta, are the ones who think your current cut of the oil profits isn't large enough??

Now with oil dropping I see article after article containing comments from Canadians of: "serves you right greedy oil companies!" "now those Albertans can see what it's like for the rest of the country!"... gee, thanks for the kind loving support guys, it really makes me want to share our bounty freely with the rest of the country. You ask for more and more but offer nothing but regulatory roadblocks for our corporations and moral belittlement for our citizen; people who in all likelihood moved from your province in the not-too-distant past with the dream of a better life for themselves and their future children.

Thanks,

Albertan
Former-Ontarian


----------



## Jorob199r (Sep 4, 2014)

peterk said:


> Says every non-Albertan and non-Newfoundlander.
> 
> So people in my province put up the money, take on the risk, move here to work the shitty jobs, and have to live in this flat, boring, dark, cold province for the best years of our lives. All in an attempt to hopefully save some money and get ahead in life.
> 
> ...


Flat, boring, dark, cold Province?

I live in Alberta and think it's great. I love the mountains. It has great outdoor stuff to do. I love all the parks and bike paths in my city. I lived in Manitoba, that place is flat, boring, dark and really, really cold. I grew up in Nova Scotia, I hate that province more than words can describe. It's the definition of boring to me.

As an Albertan, the thing that frustrates me are provinces like Nova Scotia ban fracking and call it evil, yet they're all too happy to sit on their duff's, judge others and collect all that equalization money from Alberta, from fracking. It's the definition of hypocrisy. How about they refuse to accept equalization from Western provinces based on their moral opposition to fracking? Oh wait, they like their hand outs.


----------



## martin15 (Feb 18, 2014)

peterk said:


> Says every non-Albertan and non-Newfoundlander.





Jorob199r said:


> t they're all too happy to sit on their duff's, judge others and collect all that equalization money from Alberta,



And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the answer to the OP's question.

It also answers why Norway has a good oil fund, and we don't.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

martin15 said:


> And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the answer to the OP's question.
> 
> It also answers why Norway has a good oil fund, and we don't.


You're so witty it's just blowing my simple prairie bumpkin mind, martin. Perhaps you should try addressing our comments with some introspective thought and a rational opinion instead of an outburst of snark and jealousy.

^ _This_, "ladies and gentlemen", is exactly the answer to the question, in fact. The question being: Why the hell would Alberta care to share even more of its hard-earned money with provinces that refuse to play ball, won't even develop their own resources, and provide nothing but these pithy, high-horsed comments from the peanut gallery to make themselves feel superior, all the while trying to shove their hands further down our pockets?

Maybe the rest of Norway appreciates their oil producing regions and doesn't take every opportunity to road-block progress and make snippety uninformed comments about their economic engine...

And yes Jorob, Alberta is OK. The mountains are very nice, drumheller is neat, and Calgary is a fun if somewhat sterile city. But be honest, the primary reason Calgary is so nice to you is because you have money there and you couldn't make nearly the money you do back home, isn't it? Are you honestly saying that IF you could make the same amount of money back home you would rather stay in Calgary than Halifax? I'd choose Halifax in a heartbeat. Or Quebec, BC or southern Ontario.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Here is an excellent article that shows where Canada went wrong with its Oil Sands.
It looks back at the NEB forecasts from exactly 10 years ago, what the assumptions were, and how the oil sands have actually performed.

It is ironic that back in 2005, the NEB was forecasting $50 WTI oil and 85c. CAD$.
We are pretty much at those levels right now, give or take.

However, back then, Canadian Oil Sands was expected to be profitable at even $20 - $25 WTI.

So, what happened?

_*Rising oil prices since the early 2000s have hidden a lot of sins in the oil sands*_


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I wonder where all the money is going to come from to fix the environmental damage, after the oil companies have packed up and left ?

If there is no large sovereign fund from royalties............how likely is it there is a large reclamation fund building and waiting to be used.

In some other areas of the world (Eastern Europe mostly)..........the oil companies came and there was a boom. Towns sprang up and the area prospered for years.

Then the oil ran out..........and the companies abandoned the area, leaving a wake of destruction behind for someone else to clean up.

How they "clean up" from fracking wells is............cap the well head, build a fence around it..........and leave.

The "record" for companies cleaning up environmental damage later............isn't very good.

Here in London, Ontario........we are still dealing with how to clean up a local waterway (Potters Creek) that was contaminated with toxic material 50 years ago, by a company long gone and forgotten now.

The city is still debating what to do with the toxic "sludge" from the creek.

It would give greater comfort to everyone.........if there was a highly visible fund that was dedicated to reclaiming the oil sands.

Without it.............it will be left as is.............and the trade off will have been trading a centuries old boreal forest for scraped earth and sludge ponds.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Oil sands mining companies have to put cash into a reclamation fund as they produce per Alberta law. Whether it is enough I don't know but it was upped somewhat a few/several? years ago. It can probably be googled if one wants too.


----------



## el oro (Jun 16, 2009)

Reclamation is already under way on active projects.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

$1600 Gold by 2011 said:


> Reclamation is already under way on active projects.


Yes, it is an ongoing expectation as mine pits are exhausted. I was thinking more about tailings ponds, the last one of which will take many years to settle after operations cease to be reclaimed. The key is to ensure the companies have enough money secured at arm's length to make sure the job gets done. Ultimately, technology may make tailings ponds redundant and there will not be a 'long standing' tailings pond left for reclamation post-operations.

http://oilsands.alberta.ca/reclamation.html


----------

