Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

A little late to this, but I'm not sure if I agree.

Royalties are for the people of Alberta to receive our share of resource revenue.

Why should we be exempt from the reclamation liabilities (orphan wells, tailings ponds, etc.) created by the extraction of the resources which generate those revenues for us? Feels a bit like a double standard, no?

That is a take I never expected to read. Thank you, Mr Burns.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That is a take I never expected to read. Thank you, Mr Burns.

The oil and gas companies with record profits.

It'S NoT eNoUgH!

[Fuzz]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1594683347715891203

#### sakes, now she wants us to crowdsource and raise money for our own healthcare from family members. Oh, you happen to have lost the health lottery and have a chronic illness? Hope you are good at begging! This is not how healthcare is supposed to work.

Nice Gadsden license plate, you muppet. Go away. NOBODY WANTS YOU. Thanks again to the ####face morons who put her in charge. Well done.

[puffnstuff]

Somehow she has been even worse than I thought she would be.

[GGG]

Is that the video from earlier this year being rebroadcast or a new one doubling down on her stupidity.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is that the video from earlier this year being rebroadcast or a new one doubling down on her stupidity.

She said this earlier in the year and still won the leadership? What is wrong with conservatives these days?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by belsarius

She said this earlier in the year and still won the leadership? What is wrong with conservatives these days?

…that only about 85,000 of us bothered to vote.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

…that only about 85,000 of us bothered to vote.

“Us” lol

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

…that only about 85,000 of us bothered to vote.

Is it just me or does it seem fundamentally unjust that a party can swap leaders with ideas for which they dont have a mandate mid-term?

I have never cast a vote for Danielle Smith and it seems insane that I'd have to join a party specifically for the purpose of not voting for her.

If the party wants to change leaders, fill your boots, but call an election so that the new leader would have an actual mandate from her constituents.

[Frequitude]

I 100% agree. Leadership change of the governing party should require a general election within, like, 3 months max.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

A little late to this, but I'm not sure if I agree.

Royalties are for the people of Alberta to receive our share of resource revenue.

Why should we be exempt from the reclamation liabilities (orphan wells, tailings ponds, etc.) created by the extraction of the resources which generate those revenues for us? Feels a bit like a double standard, no?

Royalty rates are set such that the company is adequately rewarded for the risks it takes in developing the resource on behalf of the province.

So we could say the province is liable for all reclamation and increase the Royalty rate to account for transferring cost from the industry to the province.

Industry would not like this because it moves payments forward in time.

[Jason14h]

In reality you didn’t elect the leader of the party during the general election . You elected your ridings candidate

But the point stands that most people vote for the leader / party

I guess the answer is they did hold an election within the Conservative Party and she was elected

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Because that would defeat the purpose of collecting royalties.

What other industries require taxpayers to clean up their mess for them using the excuse “well we paid our taxes so don’t be a hypocrite”

I think the purpose of royalties is to make sure I, and all Albertans, receive a fair share of the profits from extracting our resources. Profits are net of costs, and reclamation is part of the lifecycle cost of extracting our resources. By accepting the royalties, and therefore the reclamation liabilities created by their extraction, I think its fair to say its partly my mess.

What do you think the purpose of collecting royalties is?

Originally Posted by Izzle

The oil and gas companies with record profits.

It'S NoT eNoUgH!

And me and all Albertans receiving record royalties.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That is a take I never expected to read. Thank you, Mr Burns.

Where's the logical fallacy?

Look, I get that its a bit controversial but it makes sense to me. I don't work for a company with orphan well liabilities, nor do I own shares in one. I just think its fair to own a share of the liabilities if I'm going to take a share of the profits.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I know a ton of people that have been driving on a GDL for a decade plus.

I don't think everyone paid it, and the move kind of points to that.

For sure, I know plenty of people who have done the same. Also see plenty of jobs posted that require a full licence . My point was anyone who has got their regular licence have had to pay for the additional road test.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

In reality you didn’t elect the leader of the party during the general election . You elected your ridings candidate

But the point stands that most people vote for the leader / party

I guess the answer is they did hold an election within the Conservative Party and she was elected

We really elect a party with a platform they want to implement. None of this trashy Libertarian bull#### was in the platform at the last election.

She can write a new platform of crazy, and put it to the electorate. Until that date, she should be in caretaker mode. Nobody has had a say on this.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I think the purpose of royalties is to make sure I, and all Albertans, receive a fair share of the profits from extracting our resources. Profits are net of costs, and reclamation is part of the lifecycle cost of extracting our resources. By accepting the royalties, and therefore the reclamation liabilities created by their extraction, I think its fair to say its partly my mess.

What do you think the purpose of collecting royalties is?

Not to be an additional source of corporate welfare? Are our tax rates not low enough to provide them with a reasonable profit after cleaning up their mess?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Speaking of Conservatives wasting time and money, did the Red Tape Commission or whatever ever actually find any fat to trim

They got rid of that awful system where you could just drive to Kananaskis and have a nice time with your family costing you nothing more than gasoline.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

They got rid of that awful system where you could just drive to Kananaskis and have a nice time with your family costing you nothing more than gasoline.

That was a good decision though given the amount of investment needed to handle the increased visitation. They just forgot the corresponding budget increase.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I think the purpose of royalties is to make sure I, and all Albertans, receive a fair share of the profits from extracting our resources. Profits are net of costs, and reclamation is part of the lifecycle cost of extracting our resources. By accepting the royalties, and therefore the reclamation liabilities created by their extraction, I think its fair to say its partly my mess.

What do you think the purpose of collecting royalties is?


And me and all Albertans receiving record royalties.


Where's the logical fallacy?

Look, I get that its a bit controversial but it makes sense to me. I don't work for a company with orphan well liabilities, nor do I own shares in one. I just think its fair to own a share of the liabilities if I'm going to take a share of the profits.

I didn't say it was a logical fallacy. But oil companies for decades have known the rules. They are supposed to manage this part of the equation from their share of resource funds. If it comes out of royalties, that's fine, but as GGG says, the royalties should rise to cover it. The problem with this is there is less incentive for them to operate in a way that keeps reclamation costs as low as possible. You are then also setting up the government as the one who hires contractors to do the work, so you are adding more layers of expense and management.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

That was a good decision though given the amount of investment needed to handle the increased visitation. They just forgot the corresponding budget increase.

It was a good decision to restrict access for lower income Albertans?