Ed blinks... Alberta rejigs royalty regime

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Muta

Fair enough, but back to the question, do you actually believe that more drilling will have a positive environmental impact in general?

If you get out of bed tomorrow and live your day, that will have a detrimental impact on the environment. Guess we should all stay in bed tomorrow by that rationale.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

- LOL....Nice attempt at trying to back me into a corner. Of course I use heat and light. I also minimize my use of it, and try and find alternative methods to use, such as solar and natural sunlight.

Then someone is going to go out and drill for gas, so you can heat your home and plug in your computer so you can complain about the gas well you are dependent on.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

- So....Are you denying the impact on human and wildlife that oil sands development has? Just curious to know.

Not at all, it's poorly misrepresented, sometimes from igornace, sometimes with malicious intent, and therefore people don't get the right idea, but overall yea oil sands development has a negative impact. But again, what does that have to do with the royalty adjustments today? I answered your question, just curious if you can answer that one.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

If you get out of bed tomorrow and live your day, that will have a detrimental impact on the environment. Guess we should all stay in bed tomorrow by that rationale.

I'm not talking about me, I'm just asking a simple question about drilling in general.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

- LOL....Nice attempt at trying to back me into a corner. Of course I use heat and light. I also minimize my use of it, and try and find alternative methods to use, such as solar and natural sunlight.

I think it's a valid point though.. you try to minimize your impact as best you can while balancing that with living a normal life.

I think it's possible to do non-conventional oil in the same way.. yes it will be harmful to the environment. So are the millions of bird deaths each year due to airplanes, decimation of Cod, etc etc.. the trick is to find the balance, we can't just turn off the oil taps. (Or rather I think we could in a very reasonable amount of time if we had the will to, but that will doesn't exist, at least not yet).

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm not talking about me, I'm just asking a simple question about drilling in general.

It's not a simple question. It's a silly question. Just like mine, they both say the only way to not have a harmful affect is to do nothing. But I'll guess you will decide to go on with your day tomorrow, and because of those demands, someone is going to have to drill a gas well.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by fotze

Only if you admit that construction of buildings or other things architects deisgn will have a positive impact on the environment as opposed to letting a parcel of land remain untouched.

I've already flat-out stated that construction of buildings have a net negative impact on the environment. Perhaps my firm should get a similar financial break, too; I mean, oil companies need buildings as well, don't they? My industry is just as important in the overall process, is it not?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well why don't you tell me all the ways in which the oil industry protects the environment? I'm not denying they make efforts, but you seem to be implying expert knowledge on the subject.

I have already explained my contact with the industry and no, I am not an expert; but I will give you two (one good, one bad) examples from our companys' experience.

These are from a job done on the Beaufort Sea.

Good one:

When equipment (trucks, nodwells, etc) are parked they must have a large drip pan placed under them "just in case" they are leaking something. Additionally, any spill amounting to more than 8 ozs. must be reported and reclamation completed.

Bad one:

Workers are not allowed to urinate on the ice because it will end up in the ocean. They must bag it and bring it back to base camp to be disposed of with the camp waste. Now this is where environmentalists have missed the mark. From camp it is trucked (with a huge diesel guzzling tanker) many KM's away to Tuktoyaktuk where it is dumped ..... wait for it..... in the ocean, because they don't have sewage processing plants up there.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Then someone is going to go out and drill for gas, so you can heat your home and plug in your computer so you can complain about the gas well you are dependent on.

My computer is powered on canola oil and harnesses lunar power when it's in sleep mode.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

It's not a simple question. It's a silly question. Just like mine, they both say the only way to not have a harmful affect is to do nothing. But I'll guess you will decide to go on with your day tomorrow, and because of those demands, someone is going to have to drill a gas well.

Fine, I'm not denying that. Let's hope, then, that the oil companies are doing that for the goodwill of the people and not purely for pure financial gain, then.

Perhaps oil companies should be not-for-profit organizations, then.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Muta

I've already flat-out stated that construction of buildings have a net negative impact on the environment. Perhaps my firm should get a similar financial break, too; I mean, oil companies need buildings as well, don't they? My industry is just as important in the overall process, is it not?

Are you kidding me? If you want the same 'break' go to work tomorrow and insist they pay all kinds of levels of tax that you have never had to worry about before. These royalties are nothing but an extra layer of tax. I tell you what I'm happy to assign my companies break over to you if you like.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Muta

Fine, I'm not denying that. Let's hope, then, that the oil companies are doing that for the goodwill of the people and not purely for pure financial gain, then.

Perhaps oil companies should be not-for-profit organizations, then.

Are you a non profit organization? If not, why the 2x standard

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Are you kidding me? If you want the same 'break' go to work tomorrow and insist they pay all kinds of levels of tax that you have never had to worry about before. These royalties are nothing but an extra layer of tax. I tell you what I'm happy to assign my companies break over to you if you like.

What exactly are you arguing over? The reduction in the royalty rate is to simply stimulate new oil and gas development. Perhaps lowering my companies' tax rate stimulates growth for my industry too, which means we can hire more people to accompany the now-wealthier oil firms demands for facilities. It's all interrelated.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Muta

What exactly are you arguing over? The reduction in the royalty rate is to simply stimulate new oil and gas development. Perhaps lowering my companies' tax rate stimulates growth for my industry too, which means we can hire more people to accompany the now-wealthier oil firms demands for facilities. It's all interrelated.

My points as I said before is that this isn't a 'break'. Royalties is another level of tax you will never have to worry about. So to use the word 'break' and to be jealous of the 'break' tells me you really don't know what a royalty is.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

My points as I said before is that this isn't a `break'. Royalties is another level of tax you will never have to worry about. So to use the word 'break' and to be jealous of the 'break' tells me you really don't know what a royalty is.

...The 'break' being the reduction in royalty payments. You know, the ones that oil and gas firms are getting to stimulate future oil and gas development.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Muta

...The 'break' being the reduction in royalty payments. You know, the ones that oil and gas firms are getting to stimulate future oil and gas development.

ya I get it, but don't compare it to your business. For you to properly compare it to your business you don't just simple reduce your tax rate. You slap on another tax regime on top of the existing tax regime than then tweak one of the two tax regimes.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Are you a non profit organization? If not, why the 2x standard

I don't work for a not-for-profit organization, but I sure did for a long time before my current gig.

No double standard here; if you're getting some kind of deal from the government to stimulate development, then, in the interest of fairness, shouldn't we have one too? Just sayin'.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Muta

Fair enough, but back to the question, do you actually believe that more drilling will have a positive environmental impact in general?

No. I don't think I have said that anywhere; that it would be a "positive" impact.

You bring up a good point though and that is the distinction between current drilling and new drilling. The reduction in royalties is only on "new" projects. So really they are encouraging the abandonment of existing wells and the creation of more wells. Potentially secondary ones on the same sites.

From an environmental stand point, they would have been better off relaxing them on existing ones.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by First Lady

From an environmental stand point, they would have been better off relaxing them on existing ones.

Agreed.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't work for a not-for-profit organization, but I sure did for a long time before my current gig.

No double standard here; if you're getting some kind of deal from the government to stimulate development, then, in the interest of fairness, shouldn't we have one too? Just sayin'.

I'm sure you could arrange for the same kind of 'deal'.

First pay them the $10 you owe them in tax. Then pay them another $10 as a second layer of tax, then, arrange for them to give you a buck or two back.

Your refrence point here is that you think this is a break because you have paid 18 bucks instead of 20. I'm saying in your industry, you only pay 10, so nothing to be envious of.