Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
No it wouldn’t imply that at all.
|
Oh good. Then it seems we’re closer in positions than it would appear. Neither of us wants Albertans to bear 100% of reclamation costs.
Perhaps we could pivot to the remainder of that post which outlines how our royalty framework recognizes reclamation costs as deductible under it’s “revenue minus cost” approach. This effectively means it’s a cost partially born by Albertans. Which is exactly the spirit my position that started this discussion.
I get that deducting reclamation costs from orphan well X against revenues from new well Y isn’t part of the current framework. But in keeping with the spirit of the current framework as I linked, it would suggest that Albertans overcollected royalties on orphan well X (because reclamation activities never occurred and therefore their costs were never deducted).
Does the heart of your issue with this one lie then in wanting the “revenue minus cost” approach of the framework rewritten?
Look, I can’t stand Danielle Smith and her policies. I think we need an election immediately and my vote currently goes to the NDP over this version of the UCP. But this one hunts for me. A fundamental principal of making sure reclamation occurs is either ensuring it’s activities are completed while the company is still earning revenue, or by forcing money to be set aside while it is (like MFSP for the tailings ponds). This program feels in line the the first of those two…getting people actually out there reclaiming the damn things while revenues are being generated. It would need to be written properly, but the concept rings well with me on first blush.