Freethink, you may not care what you pay for oil, but don't complain to farmers or the governement when a loaf of bread hits 10 bucks and the iceburg lettuce sells for 5 bucks. Just because people don't use fuel doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention or rejoice in the high price.....you will end up paying more one way or antother.
Dean, thats what Alberta has started doing, and what Trudeau had in mind.
yup.. and all the companies got real pissed at the time.. good thing Alberta stayed the course... as if the companies would leave because their profits were only 4 Billion instead of 4.5
Petro Canada is in a unique position as they are oil producers, refiners and retailers. They have the ability to refine as much oil as they can pull out of the ground (based on refinery capacity) and sell it at their own pumps.
Start splitting that up between separate companies and you can run into some problems should oil production slow down as a result of energy companies moving away from oil and into other products.
Canada/Alberta should take a peek @ Norway's game plan. They are the 2nd richest country per capita in the world because of the way they managed their north sea oil. (Yes I know they are a small country - pop 4.6 million but Im sure some of their practices can be emulated in Canada.)
A platform in the Norwegian sea pumps out oil, source of the country's wealth. The money is funneled into a fund now worth about $350 billion, making it one of the largest pools of investment capital in the world.
Norway numbers Per capita income: $65,509 (second only to Luxembourg)
Health-care services: available to all of its 4.6 million people, with the cap on out-of-pocket expenses at $200 a year.
Maternity leave: Working women get a year off at 80 percent pay.
Oil exports: The world's third-largest after Saudi Arabia and Russia. Its 2.9 million barrels a day bring in roughly $1.8 billion a week (at $96 a barrel).
Chicago Tribune
/ OSLO, Norway — If you wanted to design a small, 21st-century nation from scratch, combining outrageous good fortune with virtue, you'd probably come up with something like Norway.
With a per-capita income of $65,509, Norway ranks second only to superrich Luxembourg. Much of the wealth derives from North Sea oil, but Norwegians have barely touched a penny of it, instead putting more than $350 billion into an investment fund for future generations.
Health-care services are considered among the best in the world and are available to everyone, with the cap on out-of-pocket expenses at $200 a year. Working women on maternity leave get a year off at 80 percent pay. Elderly Norwegians seeking to escape the harsh northern winters can retire to government-run geriatric communities in sunny Spain.
Norway, home of the Nobel Peace Prize, has no enemies, but it does have a well-trained army that is always on the front lines of international peacekeeping missions. It also gives generously to less fortunate nations, donating more per capita than any other country.
And the government recently unveiled plans to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions to zero and thus become the world's first "carbon-neutral" country by 2050.
So you might think that all of this good fortune and virtue would make the Norwegians just a little bit fat and self-satisfied?
Self-satisfied maybe, but fat, no. According to a new study on obesity, Norwegians are the slimmest people in Europe.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Tekim</cite>Canada/Alberta should take a peek @ Norway's game plan. They are the 2nd richest country per capita in the world because of the way they managed their north sea oil.</blockquote>
Alberta doesn't have the option to relocate their oil reserves to locations where it is easier to extract.
Off shore rigs are FAR cheaper per barrel than digging up the oil sands and sending it through an expensive upgrader only to end up with a product that is of lower quality than what Norway pulls directly out of the ocean floor.
Norway also has a population of under 5 million people and is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. People are taxed based on their net worth and a value added tax is added to all goods. The current VAT standard rate in Norway is 25%, food and drink is 14%, and movie theater tickets and public transportation 7%.
If Alberta was to look closely at Norway they would quickly join forces with BC (just to get a port city and direct access to Alaska) and become a sovereign nation.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Mr. Nobody</cite>Freethink, you may not care what you pay for oil, but don't complain to farmers or the governement when a loaf of bread hits 10 bucks and the iceburg lettuce sells for 5 bucks. Just because people don't use fuel doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention or rejoice in the high price.....you will end up paying more one way or antother.
Dean, thats what Alberta has started doing, and what Trudeau had in mind.</blockquote>
You misunderstood. What I'm saying is that I, like everyone else, don't like what I'm paying for gas, but I certainly don't support more government intervention. When government gets involved, it gets screwed up.
The Bush administration is pressing the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to look into regulating such funds, cumulatively worth trillions of dollars. The fear is that the funds could be used to destabilize markets or to take over strategic assets. Of particular concern are giant funds controlled by Russia and a new $200 billion fund launched by China earlier this year. Libya announced a $40 billion fund last month.
The Norwegian fund, however, is a model of transparency and enlightened Scandinavian management. It invests mainly in European and U.S. companies, but it is precluded from owning more than a 3 percent stake in any company in order not to unduly influence a company's business.
The fund is now worth about $350 billion, making it one of the largest pools of investment capital in the world. The Norwegians have, in effect, figured out how to transform a nonrenewable resource into a self-sustaining resource.
There is nothing wrong with governement regulation and intervention as long as its a sign of maturity. Norway has it figured out and it works for them. Other country's are copying them, it makes sense. Just the fact that Bush and his neoCons are against it makes me believe that Norway shows a country can control its own destiny.
Good post tekim, thanks, everyone should take a moment and read it.
Alberta has a the Alberta Heritage Fund which sits around $18 billion right now.
I wonder how much higher it would be if Alberta sent no money to the feds and implemented higher provincial sales/income taxes to the population.
The Norwegian Fund is also 40% invested in the stock market which is a common criticism of the fund whereas the Alberta Heritage Fund is invested much more conservatively.
Why criticize it,,,,isn't that what Free markets allow ? Norway is just playing the game more efficiently with their resources.
Can't have it both ways, but our American buddy's seem to think they can. Take at look at the US taxpayer bailout of the Financial system, you gotta be kidding me if you believe in Free marketts. Good for norway, they are securing their country against any attack from free market trojans.
Sure sput, but if you are in Canada and recieved money from wealthier provinces before the tar sands were the oil producing tars sands they are now ( how much money was pumped into them at the beginning, subsidies, tax breaks, R&D funds did Cnaada contribute ) , you'd be singing a different tune.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Sputnik</cite>When I worked in Winnipeg one of my offices required 3 buses to get to work. Had it been downtown it would have been one bus.
Needless to say I was driving 35-40 minutes to work when I would have rather just hopped onto a bus with a good book for 20 minutes.</blockquote> How come you didn't move closer to work? ;-)<br><br>Or take the bus, just take a bigger book ;-)<br><br>In all seriousness tho, it is sad that the state of the transit system still can't provide relief from gas prices in these cases.
Agree SMJ. In a large portion of Charleswood the inconvenience to get to a bus just turns people off. In my case, I would have to walk a mile to get to a bus top. I wouldn't mind driving a mile and parking for an express if i worked downtown.
But in the end, its not efficient and i'm not sure its the systems fault more then how the City is layed out.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: smjpilot</cite>How come you didn't move closer to work? ;-)
Or take the bus, just take a bigger book ;-)
In all seriousness tho, it is sad that the state of the transit system still can't provide relief from gas prices in these cases.</blockquote>
I was a recent RRC grad (barely 20 at the time) living at home and saving for a down payment for a house.
With the addition of the 35 (Maples Super Express) and the 80 (Industrial Express) the trip is now down to 72 minutes and only 2 buses. Unfortunately the 35 and the 80 buses weren't around at the time. That said, spending almost 2.5 hours a day on a bus isn't exactly that desirable for me.
I personally think it will require much higher gas prices before people see the bus as a viable method of saving money especially when you factor time into the equation. It may work for some at first but for many (especially those not working downtown and have free parking) it could take a while.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Mr. Nobody</cite>Agree SMJ. In a large portion of Charleswood the inconvenience to get to a bus just turns people off. In my case, I would have to walk a mile to get to a bus top. I wouldn't mind driving a mile and parking for an express if i worked downtown.
But in the end, its not efficient and i'm not sure its the systems fault more then how the City is layed out.</blockquote> Both factors contribute to the problem. If the 98 ran a little more often to act as a feeder to the express routes, that would give access to more people in Charleswood. The layout of the city is what it is; the system must adapt to overcome the challenges the layout has created. I am fortunate enough to live very close to the 65 and 67.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Sputnik</cite><blockquote><cite>Posted By: Tekim</cite>Canada/Alberta should take a peek @ Norway's game plan. They are the 2nd richest country per capita in the world because of the way they managed their north sea oil.</blockquote>If Alberta was to look closely at Norway they would quickly join forces with BC (just to get a port city and direct access to Alaska) and become a sovereign nation.</blockquote><p>
All else aside, I think the issue that Tekim is making is that Norway (along with the majority of other oil-producing areas) charges higher royalty rates and invests them wisely. Alberta's rates are low, and the argument has been made (repeatedly) that Alberta short-changes itself in doing so. When the oil is gone, Norway will still be in a strong economic position as they have invested their wealth wisely. Alberta? They charge low rates and give away $400 cheques. What will happen when the oil is gone?<p>
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Sputnik</cite>Hopefully Alberta can one day do what is best and protect themselves from Canada.</blockquote><p>
And what would that be? Secession? This is where the provincial mentality gets in the way of running the country and is a further argument for why provincial governments have outlived their usefulness. I'd rather see Alberta's oil wealth accrue to the country as a whole instead of really benefiting only one province.