Sask. oil and gas

[ivbinconned]

Wilagrow and Horse, if you two would get half as bent out of shape over Quebec's drain on Alberta's resources as you are about alleged corporate **** you might have some credibility.
Yours is nothing more than tired and old socialist anti business opinion.

Horse at every opportunity you rant on about “welfare cows” yet at the same time you seem to admire the Saskatchewan government that represents the welfare state and is the means by which the public sector unions extract Alberta oil patch type wages out of out of an economy not nears as dynamic as Alberta’s. That by the way is an understatement!

If anything…be consistent.

One aspect that never comes up is the fact that Alberta has been able to overcome to some degree with their economic policies is the effect of a low Canadian birth rate.

The low birth rate of much of the “western world” including Canada means that much of what we are exercised about today will be irrelevant in 30 years. Take all the 55 to 70 years olds off the road with their motor homes and their hated SUV’s and even the environment will no longer be an issue.

The impact is already obvious in Saskatchewan!

By the way…just got back from a Caribbean island where promoters are selling the locals on a big multi million dollar wind energy project. They are allaying fears of the cost by saying that under Kyoto they will be getting big payments (from guess who) to pay for it!! Subsidize Quebec…then the world

[wilagro]

ivbinconned: Advice noted...advice discarded.

p.s. I hope that you spent some of that good Saskatchewanian money on your cruise. I thought all Sask. farmers were poor (at least from all the bleating I hear, compliments of the NDP and the CWB).

Last time that I was in the Caribbean, the poverty was quite evident. I hope you stimulated their economy enough to keep them going for a while...I know that we did.

[ivbinconned]

Didn't get there by cruise, we were on a southern island where we had connections and so were able to get accommodations very cheap plus the car. We stayed in one place over two weeks...maybe we will be able to "afford" it again in three years.

If we can afford anything it is because of the Alberta money some good guys pay me to do things for them!!

We noted that the 5 cruise ships that stopped at our island spent only the daylight hours of one day...not including the supper hour so the impact on the local economy was nil...a few trinkets sold, big deal.

I doubt one could ever get a clear idea of the economy unless one stayed as we did for a while, read the papers etc. But the locals...governed by the Netherland Antilles seemed happy to a point...soon they will become a municipality of Holland. Lots of new low mileage cars on the island.

One other thing to note...but do not tell David Suzuki or Al Gore, wouldn't want to let facts interfere with theory, the ocean there was about 2 degrees colder than normal and the tide levels lower than years ago!! What used to be a desert island is becoming more tropical. The locals are not upset about that!! But if the conned industrial west wants to send them money…they will take it.

Any how we had a great time and hope you did to Wilagrow.

[Horse]

IVBC talk of consistancy you always run off on quebec no matter what the subject and dont deal with the issue at hand but if you cant blind them with brillance then baffle them with bull shit.
By the way did you see cowman down there in the carabien or mabey he is sulking somewher?

[ivbinconned]

A fair federation as opposed to comunisim or capitalism (apples and organes) you confuse the two!!

I have told you before and I will tell you again Horse...you can have it one of two ways. Democracy, the unequal distribution of wealth...

or...comunisim, the equal distribution of poverty.

Cuba or western liberal democracy (I would prefer a republic) thats your choice.
.................................

TAX System Explained In Simple Terms

Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:


a.. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

b.. The fifth would pay $1.

c.. The sixth would pay $3.

d.. The seventh would pay $7.

e.. The eighth would pay $12.

f.. The ninth would pay $18.

g. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.


"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free, but what about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

a.. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

b.. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

c.. The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

d.. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)

e.. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

f.. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, PhD Professor of Economics

University of Georgia

[Horse]

The article is right SIMPLE terms now contrary to your beliefs I do not have a problem with the rich we will always have them but I do have a problem with how they became rich just as yoou do with Quebec getting something for nothing. ie equalization.But take oil revenue from grazing leases how do they tie together, gov grants for some corps and not others low royalties on oil for oil buiz when if it was put to a democratic vote I would almost guarante the rates would be much higher and the oil buiz would still continue , where else can they drill for alta crude, all the political apointments and contracts.
I dont mind trying to compete but when the deck is stacked agin you it is time to fold the tent.

[ivbinconned]

Oil revenue and leases "tie" together because the cowboy rents and runs the property, and pays a fee to do so! Any benifits from it shall accrue to him...I see no conflict. Some leases grow more grass!!! How would you solve that?? Its not equality!

Horse I will try to put this another way and hope you will understand why I defend the policy of some cowboys benefiting from oil and gas on crown land even though I do not.

I would far rather those monies be circulated into the economy by Joe my neighbor up the road than your choice, the politicians, who get rather corrupted by the power of distribution. And YOU know it!!

Your cowman friend will be paying taxes, donating to the local rink, hiring people who are “productive”, as apposed to bureaucrats, which all make for a better economy for you all. You do not pay for the road past your yard and all the way to town…his taxes do...just like the meal in the above illustration, you are subsidized…and likly by the guy with oil and gas on his lease. Or even those rich oil corporations.

By the way do you know any poor people who hire anyone??

If you are so into having the wealth distributed evenly… what’s wrong with someone you really know down the road doing it as apposed to BIG Brother. If your ideas are driven by jealousy of him…I pity you, you will never be happy.

[Horse]

IVBC this is my last post on this matter but just to set you straight Lease holders rent GRASS and thats what he pays for on an perAUM so more grass more pay, politisions dont have cows to compete with me so if they spend more it dosent affect me as much as it is spread throughout the entire population,Everyone hires someone like the plumer mechanic painter DR and so on now mabey I dont have those people on staff but I PAY THIER WAGES it sure as hell isnt who signs thier pay cheque,gov spreads it around more than Joe the neibour going to Mexico or buying a new tractor or pickup.
Now you didnt answer how it is any different for quebeck to get paid for nothing as compared to someone in any other province that gets by on the gov TIT>

[cowman]

The lease holder is a "grazing lease holder"...nothing more? He is renting the grass, not the minerals, not the developement potential? He does not own the land.
Horse is right on this one...hey that has to be a first...I agree with Horse!
If you want to get a windfall from surface lease or right of way...then go buy the land? The CROWN owns this land and the CROWN(citizens) should get the benifit of any added money from oil/gas/coal/diamond/developement/etc.!
The lessee knew full well he was buying a "grazing lease"?
I believe the Alberta government should buy out these leases, because they created this hornets nest in the first place! Get those cows off and then if they so choose rent the "grass only" on a five year basis!
No one should have a "government advantage" in the cow business? Frankly there just isn't the revenue to compete with "welfare cows"?
Let the darned old moose,deer, and elk have the Crown grazing leases? As an Alberta taxpayer...it would be money in the bank!
As a cattle producer...you just removed my biggest competition...bigger than every darned South American and Australian that ever drew a breath!

[coppertop]

I agree with you cowman. Grazing leases have turned into gold mines for some folks. In this area there are numerous leaseholders that are raking in a huge income from surface lease revenue. Given the number of people getting out of the cow business, it does make one wonder why we need these leases for grazing. I think the leaseholder should be compensated for input costs such as fences, etc., and the grass land put up for tender every five years. From what I am hearing the Provincial Land Use Policy Framework is going to deal in some fashion with public lands so maybe this issue will be addressed.

[ivbinconned]

“Every five years” you’ve got to be kidding??

“gold mines for some folks”…now that maybe true…what about the rest?

“should be compensated for input costs such as fences, etc.,…but cowman says…

“The lease holder is a "grazing lease holder"...nothing more? He is renting the grass,”…

so why should the lease holder pay for any improvements, sometimes at great cost…with copper and cowman only giving a five year lease??

“If you want to get a windfall from surface lease or right of way...then go buy the land?”…Now I can agree with that…will the crown sell it?? Horse probably will not want someone else to buy it…and the greens will sure oppose selling it!!

“The lessee knew full well he was buying a "grazing lease"?...
I suspect that many were expecting and payed for a lot more than that!!


You all advocating wealth distribution only by the government…be careful what you wish for.

By the way do any of YOU have a crown lease?

[cowman]

Ivebinconned: Of course the leaseholder expects more than the grass...as the government has let this happen. That doesn't make it right? That is why I said the government should buy out the leaseholders rights.
I just threw out 5 years as an example, it could be somewhat longer? How much private rented pasture is rented out on more than a year to year basis? Of course the leaseholder should be compensated for fences etc.? Basically just like private rented land...you wouldn't expect to have to build the fence for the landowner for free.
I don't know if the grazing fees reflect a fair price for the grass...I do know the Alberta citizen is losing millions in surface rights money? If there wasn't a cow on the grazing leases the taxpayer would save millions of dollars!
And no I don't own a grazing lease, never have, and have no desire to ever have one.

[coppertop]

a few years ago a high profile person in the province was able to snap up a grazing lease just off highway 22, he does NOT own a cow, and rents the pasture out, but collects the surface lease revenue every year. It was rumoured that he had 'inside' information before he acquired the lease. Many real cattlemen were interested in the lease but it was gone before anyone knew it was available. That is the sort of sweetheart deals that have ticked people off with the grazing lease structure.

[ivbinconned]

But Cowman you also wrote this…

“As a cattle producer...you just removed my biggest competition...bigger than every darned South American and Australian that ever drew a breath!”

How do you arrive at that conclusion, when you state you believe as I do that the land should all be owned privately….there would STILL BE COWS ON IT!! Also I think you are wrong in another way about that as I think it is the tax deduction dynamics that sees many wealth lawyers doctors etc who invest in cattle to fill the feedlots and buy cows that impacts the ‘real” cattleman more than we know.

You also wrote…”The CROWN owns this land and the CROWN (citizens) should get the benefit of any added money from oil/gas/coal/diamond/development/etc.!

But they are! The lessee is only being compensated for the “surface” activity that he has to work around.

Until or unless this land is deeded this is still better than the crown i.e. Politicians given the pleasure of diversifying the economy…I’d much rather see you and Horse do that…in a heart beat! Any other way is a Castro sort of deal!!

“No one should have a "government advantage" in the cow business? Frankly there just isn't the revenue to compete with "welfare cows"?

Again HOIW would this change that you suggest ...change the market?? And make you and Horse (can’t believe you are on the same side) more profitable??? There could still be as many cows…maybe even more with the added incentive to improve ones OWNED land.

“I just threw out 5 years as an example, it could be somewhat longer? How much private rented pasture is rented out on more than a year to year basis?” LOTS

“I do know the Alberta citizen is losing millions in surface rights money? NO...IT IS CITIZENS WHO ARE GETTING IT! If there wasn't a cow on the grazing leases the taxpayer would save millions of dollars! AND SPEND IT ON HIGHER BEEF PRICES OR ON IMPORTED BEEF!!!

If the land was deeded ...still the public would have NO CLAIM, nothing would change!! Joe Blow, who leases now, would own, and gain the benefit, and good on him.



Copper, if what you say is true about the sweetheart deals, then that is “political corruption” and the lease holders in general should not be blamed or punished.
Crown leases in Saskatchewan are allotted to the smaller and less established producer.

Again I write…be careful what you ask for...there would as always, be un-intended consequences.

[Horse]

IVBC i have to ask you do you own a lease .
As to how you presume all those cattle would still be there i dont know , the real problem is if you have a lease you are compeled to own cows or you may lose it and there goes the welfare cheque, now if you could just have a lease that costs you a few hundred a yr and you get thousands in welfare why would you want the bother of having cows?
You stated in sask they tend to give to the smaller producer well that would be nice but how do they get the land back when you get larger or make more land for the smaller guy?
What is the deal on sask leases do you get total ownership like here?
As for fencing a fence is capatilazed over 10yr but of course there is still a residual value and if someone was to out bib you on a lease there could easly be a figure put in place to compensate the prior owner, you see there are solutions if anyone realy wanted to look.
Cowman is right most of the land would be better off left to wildlife and the gov would make far more on the sale of hunting lisnces not to mention the recerational and resources.
On politicl coruption I an sure we dont have the market cornered as you have stated befor you also have it in sask and federaly.