Trudope was too late with his carbon tax.........

[ManOnManOral]

In 2016, Alberta received about $837 million in royalty payments from oil sands Royalty Projects, down from the $1.4 billion paid in 2015 and $6.1 billion paid in 2014 – a direct result of the drop in oil prices, and their impact on net revenues.

[revkevsdi]

7 hours ago, ManOnManOral said:

In 2016, Alberta received about $837 million in royalty payments from oil sands Royalty Projects, down from the $1.4 billion paid in 2015 and $6.1 billion paid in 2014 – a direct result of the drop in oil prices, and their impact on net revenues.

Do the ratios stay the same?  Alberta only received 837 million of the 120 billion.  When they were making 6 billion were the oil companies still getting the 15 times the revenue?  Were the profits still leaving the country to foreign owned entities?

Are Canadian taxpayers still on the hook for the clean ups like we are for the abandoned wells?

Seems like a shitty trade off if we get stuck with the clean ups. 

It almost seems like politicians are paid off to make bad deals. You know, like the liberals buying a rusty old pipeline.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/orphan-wells-alberta-aldp-aer-1.5089254

 

The number of wells in the province slated to be remediated is about 3,000. However, there are more than 100,000 unproductive wells that will need to be cleaned up.

"The mess continues to grow," said Mark Dorin, who has had a problem well for more than a decade on his family's land near Didsbury, a town located 80 kilometres north of Calgary. For several years, the well was leaking gas into the air. His mother, Shirley, said it impacted her health when she would be out in the yard.

 

 

 

[revkevsdi]

8 hours ago, snopro31 said:

Can you provide a source for that?

Yes, I'd love to provide a source, believe me folks.  It's a tremendous source.  People always say, you have the best sources. A man came up to me the other day, a big strong guy literally crying and thanking me for the great sources I have. But fake news is very unfair to my sources, very unfair. My sources get attacked more than any sources in the history of sources. Sad.

[ManOnManOral]

1 hour ago, revkevsdi said:

Do the ratios stay the same?  Alberta only received 837 million of the 120 billion.  When they were making 6 billion were the oil companies still getting the 15 times the revenue?  Were the profits still leaving the country to foreign owned entities?

Are Canadian taxpayers still on the hook for the clean ups like we are for the abandoned wells?

Seems like a shitty trade off if we get stuck with the clean ups. 

It almost seems like politicians are paid off to make bad deals. You know, like the liberals buying a rusty old pipeline.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/orphan-wells-alberta-aldp-aer-1.5089254

 

The number of wells in the province slated to be remediated is about 3,000. However, there are more than 100,000 unproductive wells that will need to be cleaned up.

"The mess continues to grow," said Mark Dorin, who has had a problem well for more than a decade on his family's land near Didsbury, a town located 80 kilometres north of Calgary. For several years, the well was leaking gas into the air. His mother, Shirley, said it impacted her health when she would be out in the yard.

 

 

 

mining the oil is in effect a clean up and remediation by default. Have you ever been there? I have.The oil is at the surface and naturally contaminates everything around it. Extraction removes it and they remediate immediately once they are done in any given area.  Wells? We are talking about the oil sands not well. Oil sands is strip mining not drilling. The figures quoted are for the sands alone, not total rwevenues derived from all oil extraction. The formula does grow the percentage as pricing per barrel increases. Not to mention the fact that we sell it at a discount due to not being able to diversify the markets due to no pipeline. Build a pipeline andthe price of the crude goes up then revenues to government increase drastically. The 3000 wells are those scattered throughout the province that are no longer producing. They are not concentrated in one     area and are mostly in farm fields. There is very little to do here. Fact is, the oil from the sands is good , not evil, it is not gotton through blood and war like any oil from the middle east, it is beneficial to all Canadians, and it is relatively clean. If you hate oil, stop using it, lead us by example.

[Rod]

4 hours ago, ManOnManOral said:

mining the oil is in effect a clean up and remediation by default. Have you ever been there? I have.The oil is at the surface and naturally contaminates everything around it. Extraction removes it and they remediate immediately once they are done in any given area.  Wells? We are talking about the oil sands not well. Oil sands is strip mining not drilling. The figures quoted are for the sands alone, not total rwevenues derived from all oil extraction. The formula does grow the percentage as pricing per barrel increases. Not to mention the fact that we sell it at a discount due to not being able to diversify the markets due to no pipeline. Build a pipeline andthe price of the crude goes up then revenues to government increase drastically. The 3000 wells are those scattered throughout the province that are no longer producing. They are not concentrated in one     area and are mostly in farm fields. There is very little to do here. Fact is, the oil from the sands is good , not evil, it is not gotton through blood and war like any oil from the middle east, it is beneficial to all Canadians, and it is relatively clean. If you hate oil, stop using it, lead us by example.

Kevvyboomboom quickly checks North99 for a rebuttal

[irv]

On 5/12/2019 at 1:31 PM, revkevsdi said:

You've been really busy posting links you don't understand and asking for answers "in my own words"

But I don't think you've answered my earlier questions.

You've already proven that you don't believe scientists when they say man made climate change is an existential threat. 

But. 

Do you believe scientists when they say smoking causes cancer and heart disease?

Did you/do you believe scientists when they said CFCs were destroying the ozone layer?

Do you believe scientists when they say we should vaccinate our children?

I believe in real science, you know, the ones who actually use real methods rather than just computer models that they can change the data points on to fit their narrative.

Again, Kevvy, besides the computer models that "your" scientists like to use, what have you got that will make me change my mind and become a believer like you? 

On 5/13/2019 at 8:16 AM, revkevsdi said:

Yes, I'd love to provide a source, believe me folks.  It's a tremendous source.  People always say, you have the best sources. A man came up to me the other day, a big strong guy literally crying and thanking me for the great sources I have. But fake news is very unfair to my sources, very unfair. My sources get attacked more than any sources in the history of sources. Sad.

You're one strange dude, Kevvy. 

[revkevsdi]

5 hours ago, irv said:

I believe in real science, you know, the ones who actually use real methods rather than just computer models that they can change the data points on to fit their narrative.

Again, Kevvy, besides the computer models that "your" scientists like to use, what have you got that will make me change my mind and become a believer like you? 

You're one strange dude, Kevvy. 

It's nice that you believe that about yourself. That must be very self affirming. But you post links claiming that they prove your point when in fact they prove the opposite. It's difficult to believe you understand anything other than a headline from your big oil sites. 

[Rod]

6 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

It's nice that you believe that about yourself. That must be very self affirming. But you post links claiming that they prove your point when in fact they prove the opposite. It's difficult to believe you understand anything other than a headline from your big oil sites. 

The alarmism is scientifically not sound.  IRV is correct 

[revkevsdi]

9 minutes ago, DUMPY said:

The alarmism is scientifically not sound.  IRV is correct 

looks like your buddy Lindzen won't put his money where his mouth is even with 50:1 odds.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060103497

 

[Rod]

2 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

looks like your buddy Lindzen won't put his money where his mouth is even with 50:1 odds.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060103497

 

He’s debated many people on the subject, always winning because he’s got the actual science 

any debate he’s been in, the alarmist side quickly abandons the scientific debate and moves it to a philosophical one. 

[revkevsdi]

17 minutes ago, DUMPY said:

He’s debated many people on the subject, always winning because he’s got the actual science 

any debate he’s been in, the alarmist side quickly abandons the scientific debate and moves it to a philosophical one. 

You just pull this stuff out of your ass with those stubby little fingers.  

Do you actually believe your bullshit?. 

 

[Rod]

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

You just pull this stuff out of your ass with those stubby little fingers.  

Do you actually believe your bullshit?. 

 

I believe the science. As with most religious alarmists, you are quick to turn the debate away from science. 

[revkevsdi]

4 minutes ago, DUMPY said:

I believe the science. As with most religious alarmists, you are quick to turn the debate away from science. 

Awww that's cute. 

[Rod]

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

Awww that's cute. 

Someday as you mature you may get there as well