4 ms·

Canada did the opposite. Canada takes all the oil money for granted and basically has not used it to innovate anything. Instead, it's been drained by a few supp

Canada did the opposite. Canada takes all the oil money for granted and basically has not used it to innovate anything. Instead, it's been drained by a few supposed elite that run oil companies and their cronies. The future of the oil provinces looks bleak.

oilman 8y ago
The attitude of those in the oil industry does not help this at all. I work in oil and talking politics to those I work with just makes me sad. There is a lot of anti-government hate. People are still resentful about the National Energy Program and that ended 30+ years ago. Its kind of a mess. I think its the notion that all the provinces are competing against each other, and that under any oil program some provinces will win and other lose that really holds us back. No one can see that we can all win by collectively working together. It doesn't help at all that there are now moneyed corporate interested involved that are not interested in seeing any changes take place.
- throw0101a 8y ago
  > People are still resentful about the National Energy Program and that ended 30+ years ago. Its kind of a mess. As someone from Ontario, I wouldn't even care about it being federalized as long as it was better "provincialized": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Savings_Trust_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Savings_Trust... At the very least only payout dividends on a portion of the returns on investment from the fund: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
chongli 8y ago
Canada's oil is very different from Norway's oil. Tarsands are extremely energy- and water-intensive to exploit. This makes it far less economical of a resource than the North Sea oil produced by Norway. Because Norway's oil is more profitable, it can be taxed much more heavily. If you were to tax the tarsands at the same rate, it would put the companies out of business.
- devoply 8y ago
  Wasn't really what I was getting at... which is more in the lines of the oil industry is going the way of the dinosaurs we need to found some new industries with its profit in ordr to survive the next century. However, since you want to talk about it, oil companies fleece Canada as well... "While royalty rates in Newfoundland are the highest in Canada, in Alberta they have fallen from a 40 per cent high during the 1970s to less than four per cent, and a complex system of exemptions ensures companies often pay even less." That's insane. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/oct/26/revealed-oil-giants-pay-billions-less-tax-in-canada-than-abroad https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/oct/...
  - vkou 8y ago
    What's even more amazing is that ~2% of Canada's GDP is oil, yet if you were listen to the braying of the oil companies, and their bought-and-paid-for stable of politicians, they make it sound like that number is ~25%. We are literally bending over backwards to subsidize and prop up a rounding error in our economy.
    - devoply 8y ago
      It is around 25% of Alberta's GDP. Much of the service and secondary industries that derive profits as a result of that industry and are directly affected by it. So if that industry dies, there will be far reaching effects since there is nothing to take its place. The service economy which is a much larger part would be significantly effected.
      - vkou 8y ago
        And the population of Alberta is only ~12% that of Canada. It's addiction to oil is dragging the rest of the country down every time there's a drop in oil prices - as well as in our obligations to meet our carbon commitments. Right now, 33 million people have to suffer, and pay more for energy, because one province is increasing its carbon output. Edit: I am not a bastard, and I fully think that other provinces need to financially help Alberta disentangle itself from the tar sands. But it needs to be ready to accept this help, first.
throw0101a 8y ago
> Canada did the opposite. Not "Canada", but the province of Alberta. Norway is a 'monolithic' country, but Canada has federalism where the provinces have jurisdiction over certain areas. And Alberta did/does have a fund, but over the decades various governments (generally Conervative) have decided not to really invest into it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Savings_Trust_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Savings_Trust...

oilman 8y ago

The attitude of those in the oil industry does not help this at all. I work in oil and talking politics to those I work with just makes me sad. There is a lot of anti-government hate. People are still resentful about the National Energy Program and that ended 30+ years ago. Its kind of a mess. I think its the notion that all the provinces are competing against each other, and that under any oil program some provinces will win and other lose that really holds us back. No one can see that we can all win by collectively working together. It doesn't help at all that there are now moneyed corporate interested involved that are not interested in seeing any changes take place.

throw0101a 8y ago
> People are still resentful about the National Energy Program and that ended 30+ years ago. Its kind of a mess. As someone from Ontario, I wouldn't even care about it being federalized as long as it was better "provincialized": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Savings_Trust_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Savings_Trust... At the very least only payout dividends on a portion of the returns on investment from the fund: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

chongli 8y ago

Canada's oil is very different from Norway's oil. Tarsands are extremely energy- and water-intensive to exploit. This makes it far less economical of a resource than the North Sea oil produced by Norway. Because Norway's oil is more profitable, it can be taxed much more heavily. If you were to tax the tarsands at the same rate, it would put the companies out of business.

devoply 8y ago
Wasn't really what I was getting at... which is more in the lines of the oil industry is going the way of the dinosaurs we need to found some new industries with its profit in ordr to survive the next century. However, since you want to talk about it, oil companies fleece Canada as well... "While royalty rates in Newfoundland are the highest in Canada, in Alberta they have fallen from a 40 per cent high during the 1970s to less than four per cent, and a complex system of exemptions ensures companies often pay even less." That's insane. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/oct/26/revealed-oil-giants-pay-billions-less-tax-in-canada-than-abroad https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/oct/...
- vkou 8y ago
  What's even more amazing is that ~2% of Canada's GDP is oil, yet if you were listen to the braying of the oil companies, and their bought-and-paid-for stable of politicians, they make it sound like that number is ~25%. We are literally bending over backwards to subsidize and prop up a rounding error in our economy.
  - devoply 8y ago
    It is around 25% of Alberta's GDP. Much of the service and secondary industries that derive profits as a result of that industry and are directly affected by it. So if that industry dies, there will be far reaching effects since there is nothing to take its place. The service economy which is a much larger part would be significantly effected.
    - vkou 8y ago
      And the population of Alberta is only ~12% that of Canada. It's addiction to oil is dragging the rest of the country down every time there's a drop in oil prices - as well as in our obligations to meet our carbon commitments. Right now, 33 million people have to suffer, and pay more for energy, because one province is increasing its carbon output. Edit: I am not a bastard, and I fully think that other provinces need to financially help Alberta disentangle itself from the tar sands. But it needs to be ready to accept this help, first.

throw0101a 8y ago

> Canada did the opposite. Not "Canada", but the province of Alberta. Norway is a 'monolithic' country, but Canada has federalism where the provinces have jurisdiction over certain areas. And Alberta did/does have a fund, but over the decades various governments (generally Conervative) have decided not to really invest into it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Savings_Trust_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Savings_Trust...