Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by kevman

I'm generally pretty pro industry investment but I think part of the concern with the Eastern Slopes, or at least my concern, is the area is so limited. We're not BC where citizens have an almost unlimited supply of crown land to enjoy for recreation. And these projects aren't simply placing a pump jack, or wind turbine, in the middle of a farmers field. They're large invasive projects disturbing large pieces of a relatively limited landscape.

As an Albertan I'd like to see these landscapes protected so we can continue to enjoy them. Especially as our population continues to grow and there is even more pressure on these limited areas.

I thought it was an existing mine with the reclaimation of the site at end of life cycle being part of the project. So more brown field than green field. Does that change anything?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I thought it was an existing mine with the reclaimation of the site at end of life cycle being part of the project. So more brown field than green field. Does that change anything?

Kind of. It would use the existing site but would also be a significant expansion into undisturbed land.

Amd the significanr negative environmental impacts & risks happen regardless of whether it is brown field or greenfield.

[Slava]

The CPP report agrees with Trevor Tombe who says that the provincial portion would be between one quarter and one fifth of the assets. This is between $130-160bn whereas the province had a report saying we should get somewhere closer to $334bn.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...ller-share-of/

[Goriders]

I thought they didn’t release that number yet.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I thought it was an existing mine with the reclaimation of the site at end of life cycle being part of the project. So more brown field than green field. Does that change anything?

The company in question is a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Gina Reinhardt. At the end of the mines lifespan, they just transfer money upwards, declare bankruptcy of the company, and walk away.

There is a mine in BC that is being currently cleaned up in a similar situation to this, and it's costing more than they got in royalties. It's a mess.

Also, there are currently lawsuits filed in the States downstream from the Teck mine due to selenium poisoning. It's all good and fine to talk about health consequences, but the loss of income from farms and ranches that don't get decent prices for their livestock and grain because the poisoning is a known issue, is a real thing.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The company in question is a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Gina Reinhardt. At the end of the mines lifespan, they just transfer money upwards, declare bankruptcy of the company, and walk away.

There is a mine in BC that is being currently cleaned up in a similar situation to this, and it's costing more than they got in royalties. It's a mess.

Also, there are currently lawsuits filed in the States downstream from the Teck mine due to selenium poisoning. It's all good and fine to talk about health consequences, but the loss of income from farms and ranches that don't get decent prices for their livestock and grain because the poisoning is a known issue, is a real thing.

Ya, but on the other hand, think of all the shareholder value that can be created. You need to look at both sides and find a balance.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The company in question is a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Gina Reinhardt. At the end of the mines lifespan, they just transfer money upwards, declare bankruptcy of the company, and walk away.

There is a mine in BC that is being currently cleaned up in a similar situation to this, and it's costing more than they got in royalties. It's a mess.

Also, there are currently lawsuits filed in the States downstream from the Teck mine due to selenium poisoning. It's all good and fine to talk about health consequences, but the loss of income from farms and ranches that don't get decent prices for their livestock and grain because the poisoning is a known issue, is a real thing.

If only the UCP knew about these things called "land reclamation bonds" and that they can apply to things other than renewable energy projects.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by D as in David

If only the UCP knew about these things called "land reclamation bonds" and that they can apply to things other than renewable energy projects.

They do similar things in oil and gas.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by troutman

95% of the selenium in Lake Koocanusa is from Canadian coal mines

https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/20...ian-coal-mines

Study says Canadian coal mines put unparalleled pollution in Montana-bound waters
U.S. Geological Survey researchers say rising levels of nitrate and selenium in Canada’s Elk River are unparalleled in the annals of modern monitoring.

https://montanafreepress.org/2023/11...-bound-waters/

$1.2B later, Teck Resources has barely put a dent in its pollution problems, documents show

https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-teck-selenium-water-treatment/

Another question for you. Are the waterway contaminants all introduced via groundwater seepage from tailings ponds?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Another question for you. Are the waterway contaminants all introduced via groundwater seepage from tailings ponds?

Good summary for you:


https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coa...ater-pollution


I'd have to guess that the mining process itself kicks up a lot of coal dust that gets distributed by the wind, settled, and eventually washed into rivers as well.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Good summary for you:


https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coa...ater-pollution


I'd have to guess that the mining process itself kicks up a lot of coal dust that gets distributed by the wind, settled, and eventually washed into rivers as well.

The coal dust, especially from mountain top mining, spreads quite a distance by wind.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...erta-1.6639875

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I thought they didn’t release that number yet.

They didn’t, only the methodology. I think that’s a smart move, and not even an overly political one. If they released a number that would be the sole focus of the response and no one would pay attention to the rationale. By releasing only the formula there’s a better chance of a serious discussion. If Alberta wants to challenge this they will need a serious counter-formula, which Lifeworks wasn’t.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by edslunch

They didn’t, only the methodology. I think that’s a smart move, and not even an overly political one. If they released a number that would be the sole focus of the response and no one would pay attention to the rationale. By releasing only the formula there’s a better chance of a serious discussion. If Alberta wants to challenge this they will need a serious counter-formula, which Lifeworks wasn’t.

Okay I thought the formula was already available. Can’t remember what document it was in but there was a written method for provinces that wanted to leave the pension plan. It was all laid out and that’s the formula which Lifework’s used. There can’t be more than one.

Not sure why there’s so much confusion if the process is black and white.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Okay I thought the formula was already available. Can’t remember what document it was in but there was a written method for provinces that wanted to leave the pension plan. It was all laid out and that’s the formula which Lifework’s used. There can’t be more than one.

Not sure why there’s so much confusion if the process is black and white.

The confusion is sown by the UCP because they are pursuing this “firewall” idea. The reality is they’ve been told that they’re not getting half the money. The end result is under half of what they wanted. Trevor Tombe did these calculations and came to this conclusion a year ago, so it’s not really a new piece of information for the government.

ETA: the reason the numbers are so different is the Chief Actuary takes the position that the formula has to apply if all provinces wanted to leave the plan at the same time. Therefore, you can’t have provinces with negative values, which is what the outcome of the LifeWorks calculations would have.

[Goriders]

I thought it was black and white though. This is what happens if someone wants to leave. Guessing they found out it’s catastrophic if Alberta leaves and they want to change the rules?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I thought it was black and white though. This is what happens if someone wants to leave. Guessing they found out it’s catastrophic if Alberta leaves and they want to change the rules?

It depends on how you interpret the wording

https://www.trevortombe.com/files/APP_Derivations.pdf

Tombes paper is really good at running through everything.

If Alberta were to leave Ontario would go at the same time which would bankrupt the plan leaving Canada in debt to the provinces. This just means that Alberta would pay in income tax this new national debt or perhaps in would just bankrupt the plan and pay out prorated amounts. Either way it’s not possible for Alberta to collect the 334 billion in a way that doesn’t adversely affect Alberta even if that interpretation was found to be correct.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

It depends on how you interpret the wording

https://www.trevortombe.com/files/APP_Derivations.pdf

Tombes paper is really good at running through everything.

If Alberta were to leave Ontario would go at the same time which would bankrupt the plan leaving Canada in debt to the provinces. This just means that Alberta would pay in income tax this new national debt or perhaps in would just bankrupt the plan and pay out prorated amounts. Either way it’s not possible for Alberta to collect the 334 billion in a way that doesn’t adversely affect Alberta even if that interpretation was found to be correct.

Is it specified in the founding documents that a province can't have a negative value? That seems plausible to me if some have taken out more than they've put in but I don't know.

I would also comment that if Alberta got $334B from CPP we'd be economically rational to take it and run. Even if the plan splinters into 9 and the GoC ends up responsible for a large additional debt, our share of the tax burden of that additional debt would be way less than our share of the divided up cpp assets.

[Slava]

The leaving provinces do get what they put in with interest, but still not enough to make it a negative value. At this point the share for Alberta is still 20/25%, so it’s still a significant portion.

[Fuzz]

Are we a country, or a collection of fiefdoms resentful at the fortunate resource wealth we lucked into? This whole discussion is pretty ####ing gross to me, looking to maximize whatever we can from our fortunes, to #### over other Canadians, they should have pulled up there bootstraps more. Unreal.

Maybe once we get an APP we should make sure the cities get a larger share, and neighborhoods like Mt Royal have generated the most wealth, probably deserve 50% of it. Sorry, One Four, you get pennies.

Goddamn this disappoints me as a Canadian to hear fellow Albertans looking to maximize their own gains. Some of you people disgust me. Look in the ####ing mirror. Greed. A true virtue, right?

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Are we a country, or a collection of fiefdoms resentful at the fortunate resource wealth we lucked into? This whole discussion is pretty ####ing gross to me, looking to maximize whatever we can from our fortunes, to #### over other Canadians, they should have pulled up there bootstraps more. Unreal.

Maybe once we get an APP we should make sure the cities get a larger share, and neighborhoods like Mt Royal have generated the most wealth, probably deserve 50% of it. Sorry, One Four, you get pennies.

Goddamn this disappoints me as a Canadian to hear fellow Albertans looking to maximize their own gains. Some of you people disgust me. Look in the ####ing mirror. Greed. A true virtue, right?

And all because they want to have sex with the current Prime Minister.