'Big Oil' can't threat - Page 6 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Slava · 10-25-2007, 07:55 PM

^ Am I misunderstanding you here, or do you think that Ed Stelmach is not running in the next election?

ddj · 10-25-2007, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

^ Am I misunderstanding you here, or do you think that Ed Stelmach is not running in the next election?

I don't believe for a moment that a party would leave him in this position. No I think they'll put in someone more energetic to sell the party

First Lady · 10-25-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddj

I have a hard time believing he is going to be a candidate in the next election. I would say no political part would commit this kind of suicide. I would think they are using him as a scapegoat on this issue and will call an election, replacing him. If things go good use the party as the genius, when things go bad, which they will, blame ED

Their fall convention is this weekend and I doubt a leadership review will be on the agenda. He will still be their leader at the next election.

Whenever HE decides to call it. The only way he won't be running, is if he steps down.... which is unlikely.

vodafone_b · 10-25-2007, 08:03 PM

^ either way, this guy is a tool
when he speaks, he lacks cofidence
and when he talks, he lacks knowledge
and what he does, lacks complete insight

he has everything, that you don't want in a premier, yet, he's probably going to get re-elected because of the PC factor, and because of the many short-sighted Albertans that think ed has fought for them for more money (which, if you think the extra money will end up in our pockets, you can start dreaming)

ddj · 10-25-2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by First Lady

Their fall convention is this weekend and I doubt a leadership review will be on the agenda. He will still be their leader at the next election.

Whenever HE decides to call it. The only way he won't be running, is if he steps down.... which is unlikely.

They can't possibly leave the fallout of this decision in their party without someone to blame it on--wouldn't this be suicide politically??

Slava · 10-25-2007, 08:05 PM

I don't think that Ed is going anywhere for the time being. He has some pockets of huge support in the party and those are not dissipating overnight.

He probably will be re-elected (remains to be seen when an election will even be called), but maybe with a smaller mandate, and more opposition.

First Lady · 10-25-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddj

They can't possibly leave the fallout of this decision in their party without someone to blame it on--wouldn't this be suicide politically??

Depends if they even see it as fallout. Remember some 88% of Albertans wanted this.... they see it as getting votes.

ddj · 10-25-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by First Lady

Depends if they even see it as fallout. Remember some 88% of Albertans wanted this.... they see it as getting votes.

Well I definitely am not in that 88% bracket, but I better get out of here I need to call a realtor for here and put my house hunt into Sask and BC Cheers and I hope 88% enjoy their decision.

First Lady · 10-25-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddj

Well I definitely am not in that 88% bracket, but I better get out of here I need to call a realtor for here and put my house hunt into Sask and BC Cheers and I hope 88% enjoy their decision.

I am sending my man to the Arctic... that way we can still afford our house in Alberta....

flamefan74 · 10-25-2007, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddj

Well I definitely am not in that 88% bracket, but I better get out of here I need to call a realtor for here and put my house hunt into Sask and BC Cheers and I hope 88% enjoy their decision.

Wow. What's with the sky is falling attitude. The money that the oil companies say they will pull out of investment is more smoke and hot air than anything else. They already are or have been canceling projects for a while now because of escalating costs and workforce shortage. For them to say that they are doing it because of the royalties is a convenient cover. Fact is, those investments were already planned elsewhere and Alberta has and will continue to survive without them. Why is it that opponents to the royalty review make it sound like the province is going to come to a complete standstill and the market will crash and our houses will be worth $2, etc, etc? A little slow down in the economy would be a great thing. Besides, the oil isn't going anywhere and they have invested a pile of money into it to just leave.

Slava · 10-25-2007, 08:43 PM

Good post FF74. The one thing I would like to add is that this is one of the few regions in the world that is politically stable and has a large reserve of oil. The royalty might be higher, but when you tack on costs of production such as blackwater security forces or ransoms for your kidnapped employees, it suddenly starts to look a lot more feasible and practical!

flamefan74 · 10-25-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

The royalty might be higher, but when you tack on costs of production such as blackwater security forces or ransoms for your kidnapped employees, it suddenly starts to look a lot more feasible and practical!

Exactly. If the turmoil in the middle east escalates any higher, more countries will be willing to pay extra for oil from a politically stable country and Alberta has the oil to supply them.

vodafone_b · 10-25-2007, 08:52 PM

^ What about venezuela? I see them as a big competitive threat

tkflames · 10-25-2007, 08:54 PM

Oil hit $90 dollars today. Pardon my ignorance, but I understand that there will be some backlash from this new royalty tax. However, even with the new tax wont feasibility studies soon turn positive again as the price per barrel goes up? I realize that from an efficient market standpoint taxation is never all that efficient, but any insight on this would be greatly appreciated.

flamefan74 · 10-25-2007, 08:59 PM

Not sure if this is right, but isn't Hugo Chavez the President of Venezuela(or is it Chile)? If so, then I think political stability would be a problem for them. Especially for a customer like the US who Chavez does not like. I still think that when it comes down to it, companies will still invest here considering how much they already have regardless of the royalties. I think the oil companies are too money hungry to stop.

Slava · 10-25-2007, 09:01 PM

^^Well depending on who you believe the royalty proposal has been feasible for years now, even without the recent record pricing.

mrdeeds · 10-25-2007, 09:17 PM

Stelmach's decision will not hurt the PC's too much more than they have already hurt themselves. The silent majority in Alberta support the increases.

It is good for the PC's to have less of a domination of Alberta's political landscape, though I would agree the alternatives seem much worse.

First Lady · 10-25-2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeeds

Stelmach's decision will not hurt the PC's too much more than they have already hurt themselves. The silent majority in Alberta support the increases.

It is good for the PC's to have less of a domination of Alberta's political landscape, though I would agree the alternatives seem much worse.

Oh, come on... we're not that scary....

A little opposition from the right would be healthy...imo

Flames in 07 · 10-25-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkflames

Oil hit $90 dollars today. Pardon my ignorance, but I understand that there will be some backlash from this new royalty tax. However, even with the new tax wont feasibility studies soon turn positive again as the price per barrel goes up? I realize that from an efficient market standpoint taxation is never all that efficient, but any insight on this would be greatly appreciated.

See the other thread about royalties, channel 52 is in the title

Slava · 10-25-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by First Lady

Oh, come on... we're not that scary....

A little opposition from the right would be healthy...imo

A little opposition is healthy, I agree with you on that. But more to the right? Stelmach is pretty right wing himself. A lot of Morton supporters had him as their second choice because of his socially conservative values.

We need more opposition to the left....that is the point of opposition, not to support the things that are already going on!