Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford Prefect
I didn't say what my opinion is one way or the other about the royalty issue. Don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that I don't trust either side in this debate, big oil or government, and I therefore don't take either side's viewpoint at face value. I don't know enough to say which side is right.
What I did say was that a down turn in the oil patch will benefit small business. Period. So at least there would be some benefit in that sector. My attack on oil companies was limited to Encana, for what I thought was a childish reponse on their behalf. Whether Encana is right or wrong regarding the royalties I don't know. It was their childish response I took issue with.
You're right, as I have already acknowledged, I don't fully understand the situation. I am, however, old enough to know that both big oil and government are going to spin things there own way though, and I'm not going to swallow the kool-aid from either side without giving some critical thought to the matter. And I don't think that the gains for small business that could materialize from the fallout of a down turn in the oil patch will offset all the losses to the provincial economy. They will in part though, and for those in that sector it will be good news. That's really all I was saying.
I don't get the defensiveness you and some others have on this issue, on either side of the debate. As far as I'm concerned, both sides are out to screw the taxpayer ... the government and big oil companies. And please don't tell me that big oil really gives a damn about us peons. That they're willing to pay big salaries and offer great benefits only tells me they can easily afford to without compromising their bottom line. But Mother Theresa they're not. And neither are the inept, money grabbing leeches we call politicians.
|
First off, I'm not sure why you think me asking you if you were advocating something, is putting words in your mouth, but that's kind of irrelvant to the debat at hand, however it doesn't bode well for your "I don't get the defensiveness" comment, as you seem to be pretty defensive yourself.
But I digress. The defensiveness that people on the oil and gas side of the debate comes from the fact that people like you throw out statements like the one you made about the slowdown in oil and gas benefitting small businesses, without mentioning the fact that you recognise that this still means an overall downturn to the provincial economy (at least not untill you're called on it).
Finally, EnCana's "Childish response" is about as far from childish as can be. What EnCana was trying to do was make the point that yes this extra $2 billion that Eddie is drooling over is a good thing for the province, but it does come with some pretty major consequences, specifically companies like EnCana having to move their capital budgets out of the province to places where they can be more profitable.
Would it be childish for a hockey player to sign a contract for the same money in a state/province where the income tax was 10% less, or would it be a good business decision? And would it be childish for him to tell the other team that if they give him 10% more it would offset that loss to him?