Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
Absolutely 110% agree, nail on the head and an extra "good job" for staying on the topic.
AB gov's timing was late.
|
Not just late, but poorly planned and executed.
I've talked to a few people in exploration, and they tend to think Oilsands royalties were too low, but the rest were about right. Especially seeing as the oilsands royalty rates were set to stimulate production. It also would have been a lot easier if they were better fixed to prices and derived directly from the wellhead. It probably would have been better if they actually listened to the industry, rather than go on the advice of the royalty review firm that has a reputation of working for governments that want to increase rates.
Also, most people would be surprised how much compensation a landowner gets for leasing a couple acres of land for a wellsite. The average wellsite sees about $20k go into a landowner's pocket, plus a couple thousand a year rent. If it wasn't for the Oilpatch, the family farm would be dead, and agriculture in general would be hurting a lot more. You'd think Farmer Ed would be cognisant of that.
Personally, I've always found the idea of a fair share a little dubious. Yes, oil companies make a lot of money, but they are expensive to run. It reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where they film the Radioactive Man movie. Figure there's subsurface land sales, royalties, processing costs, regulatory costs, corporate taxes, federal taxes, consumption taxes, agriculture bailouts (via high regulated surface compensation rates), and then the taxes on each employee, contractor and consultant who all make above average incomes, and hence, higher taxation. All that's missing is the leaving town tax.
How come corporate greed is so maligned, and government greed is perceived as demanding a "fair share"? Had they simply quietly upped the oilsands rates and left everything else alone, I think they could have avoided a lot of hardship.