154 Replies to “SWTE: Dumb Luck Alberta”

  1. I think you are on a slippery slope in your definition of an ’emergency’, although the �emergencies act� is ambiguous enough that the issue would be tied up in court for some time.
    I wonder if the ‘not-withstanding clause’ could be used by Alberta to invalidate seizure of assets based on the weak language of the emergencies act.

  2. I know it’s useless, but I would like to interject with a few facts.
    a) despite the media claims, the price of oil had to break $80 a barrel to to the “all time highs” of the 1980’s
    b) recent price spikes were not due to undersupply of crude, but to inadequate refinery capacity.
    c) Alberta supplies 70% of the US’s energy needs? That’s hard to believe, considering these rankings of top oil producers (2002)
    1. Saudi Arabia 7.7 mb/d
    2. Former Soviet Union 8.6 mb/d
    3. USA 8.1 mb/d
    4. Iran 3.7 mb/d
    5. China 3.3 mb/d
    6. Norway 3.4 mb/d
    7. Mexico 3.6 mb/d
    8. Venezuela 2.8 mb/d
    9. United Kingdom 2.6 mb/d
    10. Iraq 2.4 mb/d

  3. Kevin- Firstly, I’m not a Christian. Secondly, there are several countries where the federal government doesn’t control the oil. Great Britain and the United States are two. They sell the rights to drill for oil, just as here. Royalties are paid to the government for oil produced. Governments that have natioanlized their oil industries in the past have all failed spectacularly, because they almost instantly fall victim to over-bureaucratization of what is an inherently dynamic and fast moving industry. Why do you think that Russia’s oilpatch is in such disarray? They chased out all the people who could help them develop it without making a big mess of the whole thing. Oil companies and service companies aren’t stupid. If they’re not wanted they’ll leave, and then there is no one left to do the work. Some governments don’t pay their bills. A Red Deer company sent some bottom hole pumps to China several years ago. They didn’t get paid. The Chinese didn’t get any more pumps. Lesson learned on both sides. I made some of those pumps, and you can’t always just copy. I’m getting round about to a point. Sure, the feds can nationalize our oil. But, this time around, there will be a tremendous price for the simple reason that we have put up with 20-some years of Central canada looking down its nose at us while they spend the money we send it as loyal Canadians. My household gets to send over $15000 dollars in the form of equalization money (over and above the $20000 in federal income taxes) to Ottawa this year. Much of it is spent on ideals that the majority of westerners find loathsome. In the end, many of the other provincial governemts in this country are like a weasel brother-in-law. You know, the guy your sister married who is always borrowing a few hundred bucks that never gets paid back, and the day you spend your big raise on a “new” two year old pick-up, he’s asking you if you’re sure you can afford that. They don’t have equalization in a nearby republic, and people move where the jobs are, or they don’t. But, Monatana taxes don’t go towards paying for government make-work deals in Maine. And, that federal government doesn’t pit Texans against New Yorkers just because it’s a smart election strategy. Hmmm…

  4. Correct me if i am wrong . Income tax as we know it introduced about the time of WW1. Canadian Wheat Board started in WW2. They were supposed to be temporary measures. We’re still stuck with both. An example of times the government of Canada did things in time of dire emergency. Constitutionally Provinces control resourses. Does Mr. Potvin propose to tear up our constitution? Does this include the charter? I’m sure he’s a hugh fan of the charter. Be careful what you wish for.

  5. I find it ironic that he spews off on conspiracy theories about GWB and oil – yet suggests canada do the very thing he is against. I understand kevin that you’re a die-hard marxist, but really, how do you justify the double-standard? Do you honestly believe in a stalinistic over-taking of the provinces goods?

  6. Just to clarify my comments: No Potvin, I don’t buy your constitution arguement. The only time this could be used is in a time of war. To attempt to do so otherwise would cause a Canadian Civil War. In the event of any major world clash Canada won’t have much say in anything. The ownership and use of our resourses included.

  7. This is the Unites States National Energy Plan.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf
    In my reading of it, there is not much besides questions of scale that could not be said of Canada in here, by way of conditions and future forecasts.
    Does Canada have a National Energy Plan? Not that I am aware of.
    Does it seem “socialist” of the GBW White House to ensure government agencies actively involve themselves in the creation of more pipelines and production facilities, as it is clearly stated in this plan to be the administration’s intent?
    And look at why: to ensure the poor have access to energy; to keep prices from rising too high for manufacturers; to make sure the transportation infrastracture does not seize up for want of affordable energy; and so on.
    The United States keeps an emergency reserve buried in the ground, and uses it to manipulate the market price of oil, usually to keep it from going too high in spikes, thereby cutting Texas oil companies off from profits one might argue are rightfully theirs. It seems prudent of the US federal government to do so. Why would anyone here suggest it is not so for Canada to do the same?
    Kevin

  8. Kevin Potvin:
    Nice bunch here. I’m guessing they are all self-identified Christians and Conservatives.
    Never mind the oil argument; this is supposed to be a democracy and dissenting views are allowed. You seem to dislike Conservatives and probably also, conservatives. Well that’s OK too.
    What deeply offends me is invoking the word “Christian.” Why do you assume that a person’s political views are an indication of their religion? Why is someone’s religion an issue at all? What is wrong with being Christian?
    You seem to be a bigot.

  9. Kevin Potvin:
    Deploying soldiers to surround the Alberta Legislature? Are you in possession of your faculties?
    You are calling for Canadian soldiers to kill Canadian citizens so that the federal government may circumvent the constitution. You are calling for civil war. Be careful what you wish for.

  10. 1. The Emergencies Act is an extra-constitutional statute – meaning that it is not above the constitution, and if the federal government were to attempt to use it as a basis for overriding s. 92, the courts would get to have a go.
    2. The only provision actually in the constitution that would allow the federal government to do as Kevin suggests, is actually the POGG power. Peace, order and good government is also open to interpretation by the courts, and they have done so in the past. Generally, the SCC is not friendly to the federal government completely overriding an established power under s. 92, so I don’t even think that this will help Kevin’s fantasy.
    3. Contrary to Kevin’s article, the notwithstanding clause CAN NOT be used to override anything in the Constitution. It is in the Charter, and in fact, only applies to ss. 2 and 7-15.
    4. While provinces can not outright engage in the creation of treaties, it has become a standard to have province diplomats on such ventures. Also, for an international treaty to become law, insofar as it affects provincial rights, it must be ratified by the provinces. So, yes, the provinces have a role to play in international treaties.
    Oh, and Kevin, yes, I am a self-identified Conservative, my religion is none of your business, and I am actually from Ontario and still believe that your vision is skewed.
    Anyone heard of Tatarstan? Russian republic that has control of it’s oil, in a trade off for it to remain under the Russian fold. Also happens to be the one of the most economically developed and stable republics in Russia.

  11. It’s not the oil wealth that has the ragged socialist hordes salivating for Alberta’s revenues…hell, resource development and management takes guts, risk and marketing smarts… no, the fiddling socialist grasshoppers watching the ant’s labors want none of that…they just want the benefits. In this case Alberta government’s revenue “surpuses” are being eyed by spend thrift socialist governments from Ontario and Quebec.
    After blowing their transfers on unsustainable social programs and vote buying goodies for provincial public service union patronage, the hungry brats are urging the nanny state to take more cookies from Alberta’s “surplus” stack.
    One of the things that is constantly ignored ( purposely) by the eastern media is that Alberta has “surplus revenue” BECAUSE IT HAS A BALANCED BUDGET AND NO DEBT!!!! Granted we have reaource revenue streams which are now profitable ( after so many down years)but those reveues are no longer feeding debt servicing and can be invested in Alberta’s long term stability and sustainability. We Albertans tightened our belts and put the sholder to the tax burden for a decade without fancy welfare and social programs or even infrastructure development….so we would be debt free. Now we are, we have revenue surplus…this is the result of painful but responsible fiscal management….now we have the revenues to pay cash for our needs, the greed-head, spend-thrift debtor socialists who show no fiscal responsibility want to deny Albertans what we have suffered for a decade to acheive.
    There is only one word to describe the type of malignant greed and self absorbed arrogance which would propose Albert’s revenue wealth is anything but well earned and deserved. Belligerent “envy” comes to mind. And this greed and loathing in eastern elite circles displays to Albertans ( and westerners) just how dysfunction Confederation has become since amoral statist socialism infected Ottawa and Eastrn governing bodies with its inherent fiscal corruption. Just another incentive to cut political ties with Ottawa in the minds of many Albertans.

  12. Kevin
    A few bits of information that are lacking from your “emergency” theory:
    1) Canada is a net EXPORTER of oil
    2) We have huge reserves still in the ground
    And it is in the best interest of the oil companies to NOT have wild fluctuations in the price of oil. You may want to educate yourself.

  14. Kevin Potvin: … so I ask you all: name another country in the world where the national government does not control the energy resources?
    If by “control” you mean ownership, then the United States comes to mind. In the US, like Canada, oil is “owned” by whomever owns the subsurface mineral rights. The mineral rights could be owned privately or by state or federal governments. In Alberta’s case the mineral rights for most of the land is owned by the provincial gov. This is no different than the US where in some areas (i.e. Alaska) oil is controlled by the state government.
    Your article seriously proposes military intervention and the suspension of civil liberties to forcibly transfer oil ownership to the federal government. Can you name any country that has done this before? If so, are they a good example to follow? Exactly what problem is this military action supposed to solve?

  15. All I’m saying is that the world oil situation is probably now an international emergency. And I suggest that, just as America did in 1973, production, price, allocation, and marketing of that oil should be made federal decisions under the ermencies act so that they are coordinated with the rest of national government policies as it navigates this newly tricky world. By national government, I don’t mean Liberals, I mean whoever forms the leadership. This is well beyond partisan considerations.
    For the federal government to go through the coming era with control of that key resource in the hands of a usually hostile junior government would be suicide–and criminally negligent to the rest of Canadians. How can anyone suggest the Canadian government not protect Canadians with the use of the powers that it was fairly granted by all Canadians for just this very purpose when their representatives voted for the Emergency Act? May I remind everyone that that act was passed by a Conservative regime with the Yea votes of many Albertans.
    The business about deploying the army there was in anticipated response of some Albertans similar to what we see on this blog here: treasonous suggestings of getting illegally non-registered guns to shoot at Canadian federal armed forces deployed to maintain peace and order. No national government would allow such a thing, just as ours did not at Ipperwash, Gustaffen Lake, and Oka.
    I ask you all to take a step back a moment and look at the world situation with oil and ask yourself if it would look sensible to you if you saw Washington or London hobbled on the international stage because Texas or Scotland had control over all matters to do with oil.
    Kevin

  16. The world hydroelectric situation is “probably” in an emergency. Shall we nationalize the James Bay hydro projects, and surround the Quebec national assembly with Canadian soldiers?
    Kevin, you have called for Canadian soldiers to surround Alberta’s duly-elected legislature. Would they be on shoot-to-kill orders? If not, then why have them surround the legislature?
    Now that I think about it, the newsmedia situation in Canada is in a crisis. It is probably an emergency. Perhaps the Canadian soldiers should surround the offices of The Republic. After all, it isn’t like you did anything to earn your wealth, you just sit down at the keyboard and the newspaper writes itself, right? Why should you be allowed to hog all that wealth when there are people in Toronto starving for news?

  17. First off, anyone who can write a column suggesting that the Canadian armed forces should invade one of our own provinces is really in no position to complain that people aren’t seriously addressing his arguments.
    If we are seriously anywhere near using the Emergencies Act to nationalize energy production, then it can be used as an excuse to sieze power and resources from any province at any time. Hard to see the other premiers sitting still for that even of the SCC were to allow it. Would there be a bigger gift the feds could give the PQ?
    Potvin’s whole argument is predicated on the assumption that we are on the edge of a global energy crisis. Presumably that’s that same crisis that certain groups have been predicting at least since the 1970s. Is there any real evidence to suggest that we’re any closer to that now than we were 30 years ago?

  18. Potvin, why do you only mention Alberta? What about the other provinces that have oil?
    If there is such a national emergency, why is the oil off of BC still considered too “environmentally-fragile” to drill? Wouldn’t the first order of business be to send the Forces to quell environmentalists’ opposition to drilling that oil? After all, it is an emergency situation…

  19. The republic? Isnt that the rag that I toss in the garbage every time I see it somewhere? Every time I go to Granville Island I end up throwing out about a hundred of them. Don’t want normal people being polluted by this kinda commie BS!!!

  20. Kevin
    The world has seen the end of CHEAP oil. There is still vast reserves that are not as easy to get at, but are economical at higher prices. Ft Mac has enough potential to supply the WORLD for decades and more.
    THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL CRISIS FOR OIL!!!
    Also, I’d like you to find ONE SINGLE MEMBER of the Canadian Armed Forces that would assist you in your siege of Alberta resources.
    I assume that you would be on the front line???

  21. AB, BC, and SK would make a nice sized independant country. Were it not for another Liberano in Wilfred Laurier, Fred Haultain would have been able to complete the sensible formation of Buffalo (AB&SK). Look at a place like New Zealand, pop. 3 million, very strong, very proud, very independant, I know I lived there! We should be thanking the Liberanos for incenting us to remove ourselves from this dysfunctional confederation while we still can. Let’s be honest, on the Prairies we have felt like strangers in a strange land for a long time with little in common with QC / ON and Maritimes. The city of Calgary alone contains over 200,000 Saskies! We are already one, as we always have been. It is important as we form our new association that it represents the values of the people who inhabit it, unlike what Liberano Canada has become. It has taken us 100 years to fully realize it, the west is ready to throw off the shackles of eastern Canadian oppression. Oh and here in SK we are actually quite sophisticated politically and fully capable of structuring a successful country based on equality, respect and democracy….er I mean Yee Haw!

  23. “The republic? Isnt that the rag that I toss in the garbage every time I see it somewhere? Every time I go to Granville Island I end up throwing out about a hundred of them. Don’t want normal people being polluted by this kinda commie BS!!!
    Posted by: FREE at December 21, 2005 02:32 PM”
    The conservative mindset reveals itself again.
    For the crime of expressing a contrary opinion, something this blog site’s owner is celebrated for doing, I have been threatened with violence: �. . . shove a C6 up his ass and pull the trigger until the belt is done . . .�, torture: �. . . might break a nail eh Kevin? And being in the Reserves, I will be sure to do so . . .�, and lawlessness and treason has been so easily bandied about with nary a correcting comment: � . . . pull our unregistered guns from out of the barn [and] see how many of the armed forces want to go up against real Canadians who are willing to fight for what they believe in.�
    And now just straight out crime in the form of removing my papers and throwing them in the garbage–a comment, again, that has received no correction from anyone here including the owner of this blog site.
    I thank you all for providing me pretty good material and quotes for an upcoming article about where the mind of the prairie conservative movement is these days. It’s not a pretty picture. But, hey, I’m not making any of it up.
    Kevin
    Over and out. Thanks Kate for letting me work here.

  24. Another good column Kate.

    As for Kevin Potvin, I ALMOST feel sorry for the guy. LOL.

    What a dipstick.

    Sorry Kevin, but when a marxist has to stoop to using Richard Nixons 1973 price controls as a good idea to back up his half assed arguments you just KNOW he is in way way over his head.

    Kevin knows little or nothing about commodities, serving in the military or IMHO, hard work.

    Keep on typing Kevin, you and those who are similarly ill informed are the Conservatives best friends in this fight.

  25. When I was a child my father told me that the only good commie was a dead commie. The idea of putting scum like fidel or martin in change of anything is crime against humanity. Socialism is the communist way of sneaking in to control the only fre place left on earth. We MUST STOP THEM AT ALL COSTS. When I was in the military I volunteered to put myself in harms way to protect freedom and democracy not martin and his socialist dictatorship.

  26. Typical socialist, other people’s property should either be shared or stolen by the state, for the endless “needs” out there, but someone disposes of his property in the trash & he suddenly recognizes the concept of “mine”. Just like most socialists I’ve observed, all for sharing except when it comes to what they consider their own. My guess Kevin, old buddy, is that “Free” only posted that to piss you off, most conservatives have more respect for property than those of your ilk.
    Quite frankly you do seem like a bit of a wimp, you suggest the Armed Forces should be used against Canadian citizens, which most people would assume to imply to be a threat of using force, & yet you moan & complain when others mention a similiar treatment used against you. However from the posts I’ve read there have been no threats, but more along the lines of – “would collectively wish … but they are wiser people than that”,, that’s not the same as saying I’m going to…”, “I will…”, still I would agree that it is stronger language than what should be used in dealing with someone, especially someone as powerless & ineffectual as yourself.
    I am amused by your somewhat tired usage of linking conservatives with Christians, there’s a quite a number of Catholics I know that vote Liberal (& NDP). I happen to be an atheist myself, and while quite happily heterosexual still support the legalization of gay marriage, but wouldn’t consider supporting the Left under pain of death (& that’s literally, not figuratively). There’s a lot more intellectual freedom on the right than there is on the Left, it’s your side of the political spectrum that are more prone to march in lockstep, and there’s nothing more funny than than marching sheeple!

  27. Richard Nixons price controls were not nearly as oppressive as the NEP, took us 5 years to dismantle the mess. 10 years to overcome it and thankfully 20 years later we dont forget .
    FREE the WEST.

  28. This one’s about run its course, but just let me hazard a guess about your view on Iraq, Kevin P: “No war for oil!”, right?
    Yet you’d put Canadian soldiers on the streets of Calgary to seize the Albertan oil fields “for Albertans’ own good”.
    I DEFY you to find a Canadian soldier who’d follow that order, who’d ever actually open fire on a fellow Canadian. They’re made of far more honourable stock than you, it would seem.

  29. Interesting as Lorne Convert sits by the most succesful economy in Canaduh that he directly invites the communist chinese to invest. circuvnenting the whole leasing system in sask.
    a province of nutters.
    Its why they all move west and right.
    to Alberta
    and stop before BEECEE

  30. Eh, I can’t resist. I’ve got my new issue of my newspaper off to the printers (oh yes, I actually invest real money, and raise real money through advertising, in my work) and my store (oh, did I forget to mention I’m a small business entrepreneur also, with a 12-year-old retail store that employs five people?), and I’m feeling like more entertainment, since I am also a father and hence I don’t get out at night much, being exhausted from a campaign (oh, forgot to mention, I also ran for city council, just to put myself on that particular line–and got over 10,000 votes in a losing effort).
    Let’s see: started two successful businesses, writes for two newspapers and occassionally for several others, employs five people, runs for public office, volunteers in my community extensively, consults with many business projects gratis, and father also who gets up every wednesday at 5 for hockey practice and saturday at 7 for games. I’d say that I sound a lot like you, except I know that instead I sound a lot like your fathers instead.
    And that, after working for years as a stevedore, barge clearner, seaman in the Arctic, hydro-electric line crewman, taxi-cab driver, concrete form builder, and so on in five different provinces and three different territories.
    Look, I’m not a socialist, I’m a small businessman for cyring out loud, I’m more of a capitalist than any of you. I never attacked anyone here personally. There’s no need to name-call or make personal threats or put words in my mouth. (Anyone googling me will find I have plenty enough of my own words.)
    I started my paper (the place where the original offending article appeared) out of a real genuine and deep concern for the state of our media and leadership. Like Kate here, I found the media did not represent anything close to what I or anyone I knew thought or said.
    My paper, which I’ve pounded away at for five years with no subsidy or hidden money (by principle) has a pretty substantial readership here. And apparently this blog of Kate’s also has a wide readership. Surely some of you at least can give credit where it is due: I have put my money where my mouth is. I live a rather impoverished life because I invest it all in this paper which one of you thinks to throw away, an act another of you thinks is some kind of proof that I am a leach. Go figure. I am concerned for the future of this country. Disagree please, its’ what conversation is all about. But destroy it? What the fuck is that?
    So I am left asking myself: we don’t like what we see in the media or in leadership, and yet, Kate and my readers are so incredibly far apart. People here threaten me with physical violence. (I know you people might dismiss it, but you try to go into some “enemy territory” like I have here, and see how it feels to have people threaten to come find you and ram guns up your ass. It’s a bit scary, you know, and this is coming from a person who doesn’t think twice about going down to Vancouver’s downtown eastside for an interview.)
    About the whole point of this thread: what do you people suppose is going to happen? Every time there is a significant oil-related event, the price of the barrel jumps up threefold and stays there. The ’73 embargo took it from 2 bucks to about 6 bucks when it finally settled. The 1980 Iranian revolution took it from there to about 20 bucks. The Iraqi war has taken it to 60 bucks. Three times the previous price each time.
    So we are one more event (a tanker bombing, a nuke in tel aviv, and iranian war, who knows?) from oil going to 180 bucks per barrel.
    Ask Alberta farmers: can they make food with oil at that price? Can Calgary-based transport companies stay in business at that rate? Can Alberta mineral mining companies afford that?
    Put aside the current elected board at Ottawa for the moment. Does it seem that there should be a national strategy that ensures that our food, transport, mining, and other industries stay in business while the global price of oil, determined by crazy wild events in the Middle East that none of us understand or have anything to do with, goes completely haywire?
    Why should it be that a bunch of mullahs and rabbis fighting over desert half a world away determines that those who live in Alberta get bonus cheques from elevated oil prices while farmers, workers, family people, dads moms and kids, struggle with layoffs because the price oil companies can charge industries goes very high?
    Is it not more Canadian to deal with this global nonsense in a united way?
    Here we are squabbling, some goof throwing my papers in the garbage, others accusing me of Marxism (boys, it’s the fucking 21st century, for god sakes, get caught up with the times, neither I nor anyone you have ever met has ever read Marx, you idiots), while oil companies take your oil and BC gas in service to explicitly-stated US national government dictats. They are robbing us all. And we bicker at each other about who has been robbed more, flakes from Vancouver, or red necks from Calgary.
    I feel it is necessary to forge a new national unity. Would you or would you not be opposed to a Stephen Harper-led Conservative government negotiating for the federal control of a critical international tool like energy resources?
    Does it not make sense to play the game that is there on the fucking table? Why do you people insist on getting a 21 when the game calls for a royal flush?
    I am an urban Vancouver guy. Your Kate is some rural Saskatchewan gal. We sound different. But are we not saying the same thing???
    The future is at stake.

  31. Kevin, since you have never read Karl Marx, I think you may be what Lenin referred to as a “useful idiot”.

    As we ALL know, capitalism is the idea that has kept millions of people from poverty.Your description of your own daily affairs just confirms it.

    I believe in the USA there are 3 things that have brought blessings (sorry Kevin) to its citizens.

    1)National Sovereignty.

    2)Freedom of the individual.

    3) Freedom to own property.

    ANY nation can adopt these concepts and prosper.

    As for the definition of a Yankee to many, many Americans it means someone who fought for the Union.

  32. Kevin – you have absolutely no understanding of the oil industry, nor its internal workings. I can accept your strategy, but only under the circumstances that the gov’t seizes ALL means of production, from all provinces (you know, communism). What you’re proposing is lowering oil prices in canada only? what are you thinking!? You’re talking about the limited and diminishing supply, so we’ll go bargain-basement on it in canada??? use it up before the americans come take it from us?? What world do you live in!? You publish this “newspaper”, which from the articles I have read(I spent a good couple hours yesterday), contain little to no news. You tout your opinion on events and radical ideals as news, but its not. Its opinion.
    “Why should it be that a bunch of mullahs and rabbis …” – does this constitute news???
    You bring up a really important point though kevin – your newspaper shouldn’t be thrown in the garbage…
    Thats what recycling bins are for.

  33. �. . . might break a nail eh Kevin? And being in the Reserves, I will be sure to do so . . .�
    – i think you need to re-read that post kevin. The being in the reserves part was about this comment of yours:
    “Biggie, you be sure to pass along your compliments to the Canadian Armed Forces next November 11, now, ya hear? Or better yet, why don’t we email your post to those stationed in Kandahar right now? ”
    I even inserted a break!! You can’t pick and choose parts of posts to create threats.
    And the break a nail part was implying something entirely different! i’m not sure who said it, but they were right – guys like you really are a conservatives’ best friend..

  34. Kevin Potvins says “while oil companies take your oil and BC gas in service to explicitly-stated US national government dictats. They are robbing us all.”
    BC Gov’t says “Oil and gas royalty revenues are forecast to be $1.854 billion for 2004/05.”
    I don’t believe oil companies are “taking” anything and I don’t feel as though I’m being “robbed”.
    Kevin, I feel because you failed to mention the rest of the oil and gas producing provinces in your article and instead choose to take dead aim at Alberta the whole gist of your article was nothing more than an expression of your utter contempt for Alberta and Albertans. You may attempt to argue otherwise but I’m not buying it.

  35. And it worked. The socialist mind, what a small closed thing. Yes yes its OK to think whatever you want as long its been reviewed and authorized by the proper committee.

  36. Poor poor Kevin
    You threw rocks at a bee’s nest and now you got stung! If you had said from the start that you wanted to ‘negotiate’, not surround Calgary with armed forces, I’m sure this conversation would have proceeded differently.
    So an olive branch instead of slinging more mud. It sounds to me like you are broke. I can get you a job operating oilfield equipment. No experience necessary, starting near $80,000 per year including bonuses! You can work a shift that allows you to commute.
    Why should we pay you a cheque to stay home when there is a huge shortage of workers needed here?
    Also, what stops you from investing on the open market in oil companies or oilfield service companies?

  37. Keep the fucking government out of our pockets, or dont you get that part kevin. I sold advertising for years and i know how many ads are in your manifesto disguised as a newspaper and they dont even cover the cost of the ink. So dont feed us any more commie lies. Whos is really covering your costs? The NDP? The COMMUNIST PARTY? The Chinese government? You really should try using truth.

  38. Kevin,
    Just to allow a little more reality to intrude:
    Under the terms of NAFTA, we can not sell any Energy Resources internally for less than we sell to the US.
    So, how is it that the price at the pump in the US is so much lower than in Canada?
    Well, maybe it is because of all the additional taxes that are layered on by various levels of government. Federal, Provincial, Federal (the “temporary” deficit tax), Civic (in Vancouver, to pay for the transit service?), Provincial (PST), Federal (GST).
    As for your contention that this resource is being “taken” out of the country, that does not seem to square with the fact that all of these companies pay royalties based on the amounts of hyrocarbons produced. Even when the company actually owns the land and the subsurface rights (generally, these are held by Canadian companies, such as EnCana) they are still obligated to pay royalties to the government. Keep in mind that the cost to drill a well ranges from about $1,000,000 to $50,000,000 in western Canada, and about 25% of the wells drilled are unsuccessful. If the well is successful, then the government collects royalties. If the well is unsuccessful, the government still gets money (licensing fees, taxes paid by the workers, etc.)
    And then there are all of the taxes paid by the Oil and Service companies, and all of their employees.
    Finally, with respect to your comment:
    “Does it seem ‘socialist’ of the GBW White House to ensure government agencies actively involve themselves in the creation of more pipelines and production facilities, as it is clearly stated in this plan to be the administration’s intent? ”
    Both the Federal and Provincial governments are already quite active in this area, and co-operate fairly well at the local level (that is, the feds that operate from Calgary and Edmonton tend to see eye-to-eye on most issues with their provincial counterparts; the same can not always be said when talking about the feds operating out of Ottawa).. In fact, this has been the case for quite a while and is referred to in several US Dept of Energy (DoE) publications (for example, this “Canada accounts for virtually all U.S. natural gas imports because natural gas is generally cheaper to transport via pipeline, and Canada has an extensive and growing gas pipeline system that is integrated with the U.S. pipeline system. ” in ).
    Oh, and with respect to your (much) earlier request to name a country that has not nationalized their energy resources, here: (Google is your friend…)
    Like you, I have wife and kids (I assume you have a wife, although you did not explicitly mention one in your last post), a company, and a position in the community.
    Oh, and, yes I live in Alberta.
    No, I am not a “Christian”, although I was raised as a Catholic, and I do think that has had some bearing on my feeling that one must be man enough to take responsability for their actions. I hope that I have been able to instill that same ethic in my children; I wish that Paul Martin Sr. had been able to do as much with respect to *his* children.
    No, I do not own a gun, however after PM’s idiotic “ban” of handguns, I’m tempted to become a gun owner just to show my disdain for that particularly spectacularly pointless bit of political grandstanding. (It’s a bit like what happens when I tell my teen-ager not to do something – I may as well be standing in front of a bull, waving a red flag…)
    And yes, I would definitely become a gun owner if the federal government followed *your* advice.
    And, no, I don’t work for an oil company…

  39. I’ve been reading all these comments carefully. My original article obviously struck nerves, but in the opinion-writing business, that’s what you’re supposed to do. What do you think would happen if Kate’s articles showed up in my commentary to my readers? Same thing. So I apologize for making people upset (but not for writing it–that would be hypocritical).
    I apreciate Sean’s comments above very much. But I really still need to understand the frame of mind I see here.
    So allow to run a scenario, and I�d really appreciate it if those who wish to comment could keep the focus on the idea here, and knock it off with the personal attacks. What I would like to know is, which of these steps is wrong? I will space them out so you can pop right in where you see a mistake.
    Every time a major geopolitical event happens, the price of oil jumps up then eventually settles down at a new plateau about three times higher than before the event.
    It now seems to have settled at roughly $55, after having been at about $20 at the previous plateau.
    The next event would probably therefore leave oil settled down at around $150. We don�t know when there will be an event or what it might be, but certainly looking out at the world, we certainly know that there will be an event again of some sort soon enough. (Iran war? A nuke in Tel Aviv? A tanker explosion at the LA port?)
    If oil were to rapidly go up to $150, this would cause a lot of problems. Even if the federal government were to reduce the tax at the pump to zero, oil at that price would probably mean gasoline priced at least as high as $2 per litre at the pump, and potentially far higher.
    It makes prudent sense to think about what those problems might be and to think about what plans we can make now to mitigate the worst case scenario.
    First of all, the transportation sector, both commercial and private, would be devastated. Private food-trucking companies would be faced with bankruptcy. These trucking companies bring food a long distance everyday to stores in cities, where more than 80% of Canadians live now�and where there is absolutely no stock of extra food nor the means to make it. If they were to go bankrupt quickly, we would not have food in our stores in all cities within two days.
    There a number of other industries not only where the consumer needs the product everyday, but where the producer needs the income from sales as well. The entire retail sector would be unable to stay in business past one month if trucks stopped bringing in products for sale. All our producers of all things would stop making sales and getting paid too.
    Farming itself now requires a lot of oil, not just for equipment, but for the nitrogen that is pumped into the soil making it productive. Within months, farming would be in general bankruptcy.
    So many sectors of the economy (airlines, retail, trucking, manufacturing, farming) would be in catastrophe inside half a year if oil were to triple in price again.
    Also, most workers would be faced with personal problems, since most now travel extensively by car to get to work from outlying suburbs.
    Even some towns, like Hay River, in NWT, generates its entire electricity supply from oil-fired generators.
    So. If some or all of these things follow from a rise in oil brought on by another geopolitical event, we have a few choices. Which do you prefer?
    1. Do nothing. Oil goes up in price, all these industries and the workers and families in them, shut down, and we just let that happen. (Of course, that would mean foreclosures and joblessness and homelessness through the roof, at a time when government revenues to deal with policing, jailing, and so on, are very depleted as well.)
    2. subsidize the affected industries: pay trucking firms, airlines, and so on, in some way to make up for their big losses due to much higher energy bills. (Again, with the economy taking a hit, though, government revenues will be down at a time when all this new demand on their money would be coming up).
    3. Legislate a lower price for oil (which, as a producer and a buyer, is possible here, but not in any other country where they import most of their oil�because you can�t legislate a company outside your country to do anything).
    To my mind, choice 3, though fraught with risk, is the best choice. Since everyone was happy enough when oil fetched $55 a barrel, clearly, the much higher price it fetches at $150 represents no extra cost of production, but rather just huge new profits for the companies. So, though we don�t want to hurt profitability in the private sector, compared to the other two choices above, it�s the least evil.
    But of course, with memories of the NEP in Alberta, such a plan would be met with howls of protest. It isn�t at all certain that the Alberta legislature, backed by popular masses in protest, would support the plan either. We know the premier has had secret meetings with Dick Cheney, author of the largely still secret US national energy plan. It might be that Alberta might choose to try to make a deal with America rather than see its oil legislated at a lower price to Canadian farmers, citizens, and industries. If that were to be the case, then the scenario in choice one would happen by default: a general and huge economic and social crisis.
    If we wait until after the event happens to make a move on legislating prices on oil after it has already jumped up to $150, and after food is already disappearing from shelves in cities, and after people are already losing jobs and homes, and news from around the world is already looking very scary and war all over the place starts to really look possible, then the situation between Ottawa and Edmonton and Washington would be very tense and unpredictable indeed.
    So if choice 3 is the best choice, but if its also true that exercising choice 3 after the fact is a very dangerous move vis a vis Washington, then it makes sense to make a move now, while tensions all around�though high, judging from this blog commentary�are less than they will be.
    There will still be considerable resistance in Alberta to this plan, of course. But no similar resistance in NFLD, BC, or the north�since there is no tradition of resistance to Ottawa in these places. Only in Alberta might there be serious trouble.
    People who wish to resist government and police in all situations are given encouragement when they look out and see a weak force against them; they do not usually resist when they see a strong force. Police deploy highly scary squads in hostage events now for that reason: not because you need 12 guys with bazookas to take down a drunk idiot having a fight with his girlfriend, but when that drunk looks out the window and sees the military assault vehicles and the bazookas, he gives up. He is safer as a result, and will probably survive.
    So, to prevent anyone in Alberta from thinking there is a good reason to resist plan 3, I suggested deploying the Canadian military in a big show first. All kidding aside about their weaknesses, the truth is, they pack way more power than anyone in Alberta could possibly think to confront. We don�t measure up against the big military powers in the world, but they do look impressive none the less.
    This show of maximum force is not so it has to be used, but to make sure that no shooting has to occur. The big show keeps things safe for potential resisters, who would see there is no point in trying to resist.
    The end result: oil companies are denied larger windfall profits, the government of Alberta is denied some windfall royalty revenue (but only on that portion of the price that is excessive because of the global event), and trucking, farming, retail, airlines, and so on, all stay in business, all workers keep working, all mortgages still get paid, and the nation survives the kind of event that could well crush most other nations.
    That is, we come out looking like a strong nation able to survive the kind of things that other nations can�t. We do this by seeing the federal government make a bold and audacious, but necessary, move on Alberta’s control of oil now, while things are, relative to the future, peaceful. (The alternative–negotiating such a thing–judging by commentary here, would be impossible. )
    Where am I wrong here?
    Kevin

  40. Oops, hit Post before preview!
    Lost a couple of links from above:
    The cite for the quote from the DoE is here:
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/finance/usi&to/upstream/
    wrt nationalized resources, here:
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/pgem/contents.html
    And I forgot to point out that Kate *did* admonish all of us to tone it down on December 20, 2005 at 11:57 PM. Unlike a paper, blogs do allow for a more participatory conversation.
    By the way, and somewhat off topic, I read your “Open Letter to Peter McKay”, and I have to say that was probably one of the most malicious, vile, useless bits of drivel that I have had the challenge of wading through. It seems that you have the concept of “loyalty” a little confused. Belinda owed a duty of loyalty to all of the people who voted for her as a Conservative. She owed a duty of loyalty to all the people who worked on her campaign to get her elected. She owed a duty of loyalty to the party of which she was a member. She owed a duty of loyalty to Canadians in general to end the Liberal government when they crossed a certain ethical line. Instead, she crossed a different, but no less certain, ethical line and joined the Liberals in exchange for a cabinet post, which was created just for her. What would you call someone like that? Principled? Like Judas, maybe…

  41. Sean, regarding the Belinda / Peter McKay article:
    C’mon, loosen up. Can’t you recognize a little humour? Besides, Mckay and her were romantically involved. Mckay did ham it up regarding his emotional life, inviting photogs out to his dad’s place to picture him looking all wistful and hurt. He made himself a target.
    But if you want to talk honour and loyalty, where was McKay’s? He promised David Orchard�and the substantial number of PC members he represented�on the night of the convention that he would not seek a merger with Alliance, in exchange for Orchard’s support. Then did exactly that straight away. He remains deputy leader of the newly merged party.
    Stronach was, you must admit, unfairly treated by Harper, who insinuated she was a dumb blonde with too much ambition. I don’t like her politics–you can find an earlier article by me all about that–and I still don’t (we NDP types have distrusted the Liberals more and since longer than you guys!) but that doesn’t stop me from recognizing that she is her own person, and no dummy. It is legitimate to cross the floor sometimes. You can’t say it is never justified. McKay did just that in jumping from the PC to the Alliance–only it renamed itself just when that happened!
    AS for the other guy further up this thread regarding my newspaper, and his concerns that my advertising doesn’t look like it would support this paper (yeah, the guy too chickenshit to sign his name to his thoughts):
    new technology, man, check it out: there is no office overhead because there is no office. I write and edit in my basement on a second hand mac. All other writers and editors work at their homes on their machines. The whole paper is only digital even when it is send, via email, to the printers. Everyone who works on it is a volunteer. There is quite literally, only one bill: the print bill. I print 6,000 copies and it costs $450. (its black and white, 8 pages). I distribute it myself in my 15 year old Toyota–cost: about 7 bucks in gas. All told, it costs about $550 per issue to produce and put out. I raise about that exactly in my advertising, sometimes more and sometimes less, but that’s about the average. I works out that way because I let the ad revenue determine how much I can spend on printing. Voila. A newspaper that is five years and 130 issues old that has no debt, covers its costs, and collects no subsidy or any hidden agency money at all. It is purely independent. You can do it too–I just gave you the whole recipe. All you need is about 25 advertisers who don’t mind supporting you at about an average of $20 bucks an ad. I’ve been in business long enough on my street that I got to know about that many other small business retailers.
    I really wish that you would not throw it away. I know you don’t like it, but come on, it’s a free country and we fought a war 60 years ago to shut down those who would do just that: stop someone’s newspaper. If I seem to be a commie and my paper seems to be no good, well then, you have nothing to worry about because papers that are no good are not read. So leave it alone, please. I was really upset the last time you phoned and left the message that you were throwing it out wherever you found it. Why don’t you just make your own?
    And to the people who are all over me for making no money: some people are not that concerned about making money, but are interested in other things. There is no need to put them down. You never see anyone on their death bed sit there and say “Gee, if only I made more money…..”

  42. I think that your problem is based on an invalid initial assumption.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html Covers the last 35 years ‘ World Oil Price history linked to specific world events.
    From the chart, an argument could be made that prices have risen from a “nominal” $10/bbl in 1974 (I won’t count the first 4 years in the chart since they cover a different class of oil) to a current (in 2004) nominal price of $45/bbl. The thing is, these are in unadjusted dollars. There is a link to an Excel Spreadsheet that contains the raw data in nominal and adjusted dollars.
    Looking at the adjusted for inflation numbers (Consumer Price Index), oil prices are currently A LITTLE LOWER THAN THE DECADE FROM 1976 TO 1985.
    In any case, there is no way to equate your initial premise that “Every time a major geopolitical event happens, the price of oil jumps up then eventually settles down at a new plateau about three times higher than before the event. ” with the demonstrated long-term pricing history.
    Given that the initial premise is flawed, all other steps that you propose are also flawed and unnecessary. One other thing to keep in mind is that the federal and provincial geovernments collect royalties based on the market price, consequently, the “windfall” profits go to the government as well as the companies.
    You also keep referring to Alberta’s oil, but that does not address the entire issue. Alberta is home to less than half of Canada’s Oil reserves (http://www.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=NTV&e=PDF&dn=94387), although we do hold the majority of the Natural Gas in Canada (http://www.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=NTV&e=PDF&dn=94388).
    While there is a very slight possibility that the government could try a “big show” to “prevent anyone in Alberta from thinking there is a good reason to resist plan 3” , I don’t think that we have a military large enough to try a big show in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, in addition to Frontier Areas (generally all under Indian and Northern Affairs) and the Eastcoast Offshore areas.
    Really, if you are going to spout off on topics, you should take a few minutes to learn the facts. This took me about 30 minutes of Googling, and 30 minutes of drafting (including downloading and installing OpenOffice because I did not have a copy of Excel to open the DoE spreadsheet), and I am not a journalist of any sort.
    And you still have not addressed the area of NAFTA.

  43. Oh, and I keep forgetting this:
    Kate! You Rock! Too bad that the CBC won’t allow comments (unlike the CTV forum). This would have been fun to see on their site.
    But you are still “Queen of the Roundtable”, and I haven’t seen anyone there who could be “king”. I guess I’ll just have to settle for being a “knight” ;^)

  44. Kevin, from your e-mail:
    “I never asked about those that nationalized their industries. That is different than
    ‘control’ in the sense I mean, where the national government regulates the energy industries.”
    Australia.
    USA.
    In both cases there is a national level of policymaking as well, but as far as I can tell, the actual regulation and revenues attribute to the state.

  45. As you can well imagine, there’s quite a bit of literature in this area, and a wide range of numbers. You might need more than 30 minutes googling to understand the situation. The fact is, in the immediate time frame, market prices of oil spike and then fall to about 3 times what they were before. (1973 to 1975, it was about $3, spiked, but settled in at $12 by 1975; in 1980, it was at about $15, spiked, but then settled at $40; this year it was at about $20, spiked, and now seems settled at $55. In between, it tends to hold in nominal dollars and slide in real value, but this is a medium term effect. As we saw this past year, the short term effect can cause major problems: the trucking industry here went on strike to get money to cover gas bills and the stores were emptying out fast. If the food delivery trucks stopped, there would be catastrophe in two days, cause that is all the average city has in food in all its stores. So even though the short term effect is short lived and plays little role in the medium term, nonetheless, the short term effect can be catastrophic.
    No other place in Canada besides Alberta would be able to, or would choose to, resist the federal powers. Of course it would all be subject to federal regulations in my scenario, but only in Alberta would there be significant resistance that requires some thinking. Only the Alberta premier has had secret meetings with Cheney when Cheney was making the US NEP.
    And your estimation of Alberta having only half the reserves of oil in Canada is out of date. Depending on how one wishes to classify it, Alberta with tar sands has two thirds or 9 tenths of Canada’s oil. Some say Alberta has more than Saudi Arabia. (It may be true for another reason: Saudi ARabia has not been transparant about reporting what it actually has left in reserves. It might be nearing depletion.)
    The original premise, that oil may jump in price very high (if only for the short term) when another significant geopolitical event occurs, still stands. But even if you don’t think so, give me the benefit of the doubt and see if the scenario has any other mistakes from that point forward.

  46. About the countries that have control, sean:
    Australia and the US do indeed have national control, and you can view the US NEP here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf
    It is extensive. Australia has overall national control too. I never spoke a word about revenues, I only spoke about price and allocation control. Every nation, the US and Australia included, has that authority, but not Canada, except under the Emergency Act.

  47. Nafta can be thrown out with six months warning, no questions asked. It might as well be too, every usual point of contention that it was supposed to fix is still a point of contention: softwood, pork, the usual things. All the other items never were a problem in bilateral trade negotiations. And won’t be in the future without nafta, either.

  48. Kevin
    If Klein had “secret” meetings with Cheney how do YOU know about it?
    When I was in Ft. Mcmurray for work a couple of years ago, Cheney was up on a guided tour. It was actually common public knowledge.
    Lose the tin foil hat
    “we NDP” …this is starting to make sense.

  49. Fall of 2002 Klein was beckoned to Washington to meet Cheney. It’s logged in his official business books, but the contents of the discussion are not logged. They took three days. Klein’s office will only tell me that Klein failed to take notes. He met again in Washington with Cheney in the spring of 2003 prior to war with Iraq. Same thing: contents missing, notes were not taken.
    (There are media reports of this meeting, because it was unusual: for the first time in history, an official meeting took place between a federal official of hte US and a provincial official in Canada. The Canadian Ambassador to the US demanded to be present but was scorned and dropped the matter)./
    ON the other side, that meeting is part of the larger set of meetings whose contents remain secret in the US despite a congressional committee now actively suing Cheney and the WHite House to produce the notes of the meetings. The White House continues to defy this legal demand.
    Actually. the recent *planned* trip by Cheney to Alberta this summer was cancelled when hurrican Katrina struck.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation