Alberta's royalties and tax policies discourage investment

According to  U of C's head of School of Public Policy...

Jack Mintz ... told a Calgary audience that Alberta ranks last among provinces such as B.C., Saskatchewan and the Maritimes -- and lower than states such as Texas -- after factoring in combined royalty and tax payments to government

BC & Saskatchewan have a more attractive royalties and tax policies than Alberta.

... as reported today in the Calgary Herald - "Alberta tax, royalty regime ranks last..."

Alberta's Premier Ed Stelmach

It was proven that governments receive higher revenues when taxes are cut. This may be contrary to intuition, but Presidents Regan, Clinton, and Bush all used this principle and cutting taxes resulted in increased revenues not a decrease. Clinton followed the advice of the conservative economist Arthur Laffer, with very positive results for the US economy.

When governments cuts taxes, businesses grow and consequently hire more people, who in turn buy more good and services and pay more income tax. Increased purchases of goods and services further boosts the economy and creates a multiplier effect.

Liberal and leftist ideology favours government spending, but it tends to have little or no multiplier effect, for the simple reason that governments do not create wealth - they only appropriate it on the peoples' behalf. First for every dollar taken in taxes for use in a government program, a hefty percentage is taken to administer that money by the government itself, or by a government agency. (Take a $ in tax money and put 45 cents into the economy after government waste and expense).

Second, government is inherently inefficient compared to the free market.With lib-left policies we see an increase in government employees, which then typically vote for lib-left parties with policies which increase government spending and therefore taxes to support that spending.

I believe we could apply the same principle to Alberta's royalties and tax policies.

Reducing profits and revenues, discourages investment in drilling, or new projects, this results in decreased royalties. Gas companies such as EnCana prefer to invest in shale plays in the US or BC than in Alberta. Why? They can make a better return on investment in BC or Pennsylvania than they can in Alberta.

The new royalty regime is hurting, especially with respect to conventional oil and gas investments," Mintz told reporters. "I think we have been worse off in the sense that it's not entirely clear the government is going to collect as much new revenue as they hoped because of the investment impacts. I think we need a better fiscal framework to attract investments for Alberta when you have a very competitive global environment for oil and gas investments."

There is still a lot of unemployment in Alberta and a budget deficit, perhaps we should look at the Conservative Government as being responsible; they have not cleaned house and I am considering Wild Rose next election.

Greg Stringham, who is the vice-president of markets and fiscal policy for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers' said 

Mintz's numbers underscore the need for the province to reconsider its fiscal policies.

BC and Saskatchewan are attracting investment and Alberta is missing out...

Stringham said favourable fiscal policies could help spur costly unconventional oil and gas development in Alberta, which has seemingly bypassed the province as oil companies flocked to the Horn River gas shales in B.C. and the Bakken oil play in Saskatchewan.

See also here from December 29, 2009: Alberta’s energy industry urges new royalty review.

This is not a new issue - but how long will the Premier take to actually do something?

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

The Devil's Dictionary of "Climate Science"

Sometimes, reader’s comments on a story posted on-line are superb.

One such a comment I saw on the UK Daily Mail’s online posting of the story which I partially reviewed earlier today (Climategate Prof admits Vital Data has gone missing).

Here’s the gem from a gentleman from Lancaster, Pennsylvania...

Devil's Dictionary

Peer Review: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

Settled Science: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

Denier: Anyone who suspects the truth.

Climate Change: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce 'panic for profit.'

Nobel Peace Prize: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to "Peace" in any meaningful way.

Data, Evidence: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see "Denier," above.

Climate Scientist: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for "Data" by "Deniers." Also skilled at affecting an aura of "Smartest Person in the Room" to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

Posted by David, Lancaster, PA, 15 February, 2010

Climategate Prof admits Vital Data has gone missing

While in N. America there's been scant reporting on the MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming) scandal, which is ostentatiously called AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming); over in the UK the press is having a field-day, and it's not just the conservative papers like the Telegraph and Daily Mail, but also the lib-left Guardian and Times.

It's across the political spectrum, yesterday it was the Daily Mail who had a big story with their coverage of the BBC interview with Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) Hadley, which was at the centre of the Climategate affair surrounding the leaked emails documenting cover-ups and dirty tricks.

Look at the Mail's stunning headline:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

Gone missing, indeed!

Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Let's focus on the science (or lack of it) surrounding the 'hockey-stick graph.' Professor Jones statements are fascinating because when considered carefully they reveal further deep cracks in the rotten foundation of global-warming theories.

Background to the infamous hockey-stick graph.

The poor science surrounding the so-called 'hockey-stick graph' was discussed on Lux et Veritas in Climategate - It Had to Happen. The graph was constructed to show that the earth's temperatures have been relatively stable for about a thousand years and then show a very rapid upward trend coinciding with the growth of the industrial revolution from about the mid 1800s. This graph is supposed to show that global temperatures are rising with recently rising levels of carbon-dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. The graph is bogus.

In fact it was well accepted that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were not flat at shown in the hockey-stick graph. First there was a very pronounced warm period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA).

Graph from the the IPCC’s 1990 report 

Note; the graph was omitted from subsequent reports clearly showing the MWP and LIA in the northern hemisphere 

The UN body the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published a graph in their 1990 report clearly showing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) for the Northern Hemisphere.

Now look again at the hockey-stick graph which was boldly displayed multiple times in full colour in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report published in 2001, and we see that this is alsofor the Northern Hemisphere.

 The hockey stick graph [3] as shown in the 2001 IPCC report. 

The colored lines are the reconstructed temperatures, and the gray shaded region represents estimated error bars.

Note the error bars on the hockey-stick graph shown in light-grey; these bars can be thought of as a measure of the uncertainty of the data. The magnitude of these error bars for the entire MWP and at least half of the LIA, are greater than the total increase in temperature from about 1869 to the present day. From the error bars displayed graph itself, how much confidence can we have in it to show global warming, never mind prove it?

the UK Mail states continues...

Skeptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

Fatal flaws in MMGW theories

In this debate, and remember this is a debate, because the science is most certainly not settled, we have to keep it clearly in focus that it is the responsibility of the proponents of a new theory to prove their case. Man-made global-warming (MMGW) is a new theory and must be proven. In contrast the skeptics do not have to prove anything; they only have to show the flaws and errors in the MMGW science.

This is a key part of the argument: it's not necessary to disprove MMGW, only to show the flaws in the science. In this case Professor Jones statements show the lack of coherence of the MMGW theories:

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. (my emphasis)

and then...

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Definition of Paleoclimatologyfrom Wikipedia:

Paleoclimatology (also Palaeoclimatology) is the study of climate change taken on the scale of the entire history of Earth. It uses records from ice sheets, tree rings, sediment, corals, shells and rocks to determine the past state of the climate system on Earth.

Note Wiki (which is severely biased in favour of MMGW) refers to it as the "study of climate change" however it is supposed to be about estimating temperatures through palaeoclimatic data. We need the data to show that climate change is actually occurring. We know already that the world's climate is always changing.

To convert palaeoclimatic data into a temperature series requires the data to be calibrated, or simply converted to a temperature scale (such as Celsius). This process is not easy because it is the temperatures themselves that we are seeking, and therefore the process depends on underlying assumptions and therefore can be speculative. Conflicting papers on the conclusions exist in the literature.

Summarise what we know

Let's summarise a few things we know about the history of this debate between proponents of MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming), in the light of Professor Jones recent statements:

1. MMGW scientists (Mann, CRU professors and others) used the hockey-stick graph to try and show that global warming occured only when CO2 concentrations from the industrial period started to rapidly increase  
2. The MWP and LIA are not shown on the hockey-stick graph as presented by the IPCC, which is for the Northern Hemisphere
3. A Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and a Little Ice Age did occur in the Northern Hemisphere
4. Climate skeptics cannot use doubts about the hockey-stick graph against global-warming proponents because the hockey-stick graph is only valid for the Northern Hemisphere and not for the whole globe
5. Very few palaeoclimatic records for the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere exist
6. The MWP and LIA may have occurred over the whole globe but is is hard to prove or disprove (because of the lack of data)

These six points show the contradictory nature of the global-warming argument.

MMGW advocates say the hockey-stick shows global-warming, then they say the skeptics can't use flaws in the hockey stick against MMGW because it only applies to the northern hemisphere, then they claim that science shows that MMGW is a scientific fact, then they say the data doesn't exist for the whole globe.

Conclusions we can apply to the MMGW debate:

1. The hockey-stick as shown by the IPCC numerous times cannot be used by proponents of global-warming theories to support their arguments because the hockey-stick graph only applies to the northern hemisphere and does not apply to the whole globe.
2. The lack of palaeoclimatic records for the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere casts doubts on the viability global-warming theories. If the data does not exist for the whole globe then proponents of global-warming theories cannot assert that the science is proven.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, AB

OPP & Ontario Government Deny Canadian's their Rights under the Charter

Yesterday in my post on Lux et Veritas  The ongoing disgrace of Caledonia, I outlined the disgraceful behaviour of the Liberal Government of Ontario and the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) in abandoning their duty to uphold the law.

To recap, the OPP under the direction of the Ontario Government and Premier Dalton McGinty abandoned lawful property owners to run the gauntlet of Six Nations insurrectionists who illegally took over development land and terrorised home owners.

I called them insurrectionists, but in fact the epithet thugs is probably more appropriate.

Not only where these tax-paying citizens of Canada abandoned by their democratic government, but the thugs were treated with a hands-off approach by the OPP because they are natives, and it seems clear that the OPP chief (Fantino) was taking his orders from Dalton McGinty.

My language was restrained compared to the editorial from November of last year in the NP (National Post) from which I took my title,  "The ongoing disgrace of Caledonia":

"Nothing symbolizes the pathetic gutlessness of Dalton McGuinty's government, or that of the provincial police force that is nominally sworn to protect the province's residents, than the saga now playing out in a Hamilton courtroom. The fate of a lawless Ontario enclave, it seems, now rests not with the province's politicians or its police, but with a pair of scrappy Caledoni litigants who have the guts to take a stand.

I have no complaint about calling the Premier "gutless" because his actions were gutless, but in fact it is far are worse than gutless.

but in fact it is far are worse than gutless.

By his policies he actively denied people in Caledonia their rights as Canadian Citizens under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seems clear that McGinty hired Fantino as OPP chief to follow his orders and policies after the previous OPP chief was displaced following an initial OPP action to put an end to the lawless thuggery of the Six Nations 'warriors'.

I don't think that denying someone their rights under the Charter makes Dalton McGinty subject to a charge under the criminal code, but I do know it is a disgrace, and I think he should be held accountable. I would think dereliction of duty would be a start. But it seems that politicians are never held accountable.

The charter is designed so that ALL Canadians of every ethnic heritage, every religion, every skin colour are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

The Charter is designed so that one no one group gets preferential treatment over another group; whether one group is of Chinese descent, Native American descent, European descent, African descent, or whatever - it shouldn't matter under the Charter.

The principle under the Charter is that everyone should get equal justice regardless of 'race, national or ethnic origin.'

Here is my comment on Christie Blatchford excellent article in the Globe and Mail yesterday.

 OPP & Ontario Government Deny Canadian Rights under the Charter

Apart from allowing insurrection and unlawful behaviour by natives, the Ontario Government and the OPP have actively denied the citizens of Caledonia their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically Article 7 and 15.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every citizen ....

Article 7. “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof ....”

The OPP failed to protect the life, liberty and security of the people involved; the Ontario Liberal Government should have ordered the OPP to do their duty or call for Federal help if the OPP wasn’t up to the task.

Article 15. “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination ... based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour ....

”The native people were given preferential treatment over the non-natives, and allowed to abuse them; that constitutes a clear contravention of Article 15.

The OPP clearly discriminated against non-natives who were not provided with equal treatment under the law on the basis of “race, national or ethnic origin”Non-natives should have been treated equally under the law and were not, therefore the OPP were clearly at fault and were responsible for denying one section of the community equality under the law in preference to another section of the community.

The OPP is required to uphold the law and the Charter not flagrantly ignore it.The master of the OPP is the law. The chief of the OPP is not the water-boy for the ruling Liberal Government. 

It’s not Fantino’s job to carry-out Liberal policies – his job is to see that the laws of Canada and the Province are followed.The Liberal Government of Ontario has a responsibility to ensure the OPP chief does his job. Each is part of the check and balance for the other, however it appears they were working in collusion.

Gurth Whitaker
Calgary

The ongoing disgrace of Caledonia

The disgrace is the failure of the OPP and the Ontario Government to do their duty and uphold the law. Regardless of any merit of the land claims may have by the Six Nations (or lack of merit) the rule of law must be uppermost.

But the rule of law was not upheld in Caledonia, and innocent property owners were victimized.

Caledonia residents Dave Brown and Dana Chatwell, filed a $7-million suit against the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) and the Ontario Government for failing to protect them and their home from the actions of the Six Nation during the native occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates housing project that almost surrounds their property.

Dave Brown and Dana Chatwell suffered greatly under the lawless Six Nations insurrectionists since February 2006, and all the while help was denied by the OPP and the Ontario Government. But Brown and Chatwell had to sue the OPP and Ontario Government to get remedy, while the insurrectionists were rewarded and protected by the OPP.

According to the National Post editorial in November of last years "The ongoing disgrace of Caledonia", The OPP led a demonstration of Six Nations insurrectionists down the high street waving defaced Canadian flags and their own "warrior society" flags; whereas the non-natives where not allowed to march, and not allowed to wave Canadian flags.

"What has become glaringly obvious in their civil suit against the Ontario government and Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) is that within that province there are two tiers of justice, a preferential one for aboriginals and another, lower tier for non-natives."

"The disparity was never more obvious than at the trial on Thursday in Hamilton. There, the court was shown two videos, one of a non-native march through the small town last May, and another of a march by the Mohawk Warrior Society and its supporters down the same street a few months later."

Police stopped the first protest cold. When a non-aboriginal marcher attempted to defy officers and stride ahead anyway, he was arrested.

The non-native marchers said they merely wanted to wave the Canadian flag along main street. After three years of a land-claims siege on the town outskirts, they were tired of seeing only the flags of the Six Nations Mohawk reserve or the grandiosely self-styled "Warrior" Society. They merely wanted to fly the Maple Leaf, and thereby disabuse locals of the (not unnatural) conclusion that their area had been turned over de jure to the local native thugs. No matter: The OPP refused to let their demonstration proceed."

"Yet, six weeks later, a dozen or so Warriors marched through town, along the very same street, followed by their supporters driving pickups, all waving only Mohawk flags. There at the head of the procession was an OPP cruiser, lights flashing, clearing the way for the aboriginal protesters."

"The Mohawks were even seen waving Canadian flags with the Maple Leafs cut out of the centre. These flags were then tossed in mud without consequence."

Dave Brown and Dana Chatwell suffered terribly for nearly four years trying to live in a house they had purchased legally, but were victimized by no fault of their own and left to suffer by the OPP and the government of Ontario; but there are others too. Here are some of the details from the Hamilton Spectator from September 2007:

When native protesters first occupied the development on Feb. 28 last year (2007), Brown said police provided around-the-clock protection at the home.

That ended after heavily armed OPP officers raided the site on April 20 and carted off native protesters, touching off a massive standoff. Natives poured onto the site and blockaded major routes around the subdivision, including Argyle Street. The OPP pulled back from the site and suddenly the family was forced to cross police lines and native barricades to get to and from their home.

"The natives made us a 'passport' signed by Mohawk security with our address on it," Brown said yesterday. 

Natives searched their car and sometimes took items out of their trunk, including groceries, he added.

The couple's statement of claim to the court alleges native protesters engaged in extreme lawless conduct and, because the OPP did not stop it, the family was left living in fear for their personal safety.

The lawsuit also claims Brown was falsely thrown in jail after a confrontation between a forklift driver and natives who came onto his property.

It alleges natives forced Brown into their vehicle and took him to the police lines where they told the OPP he had been trespassing and had assaulted them. An OPP officer arrested Brown, and ordered him thrown in jail.

When Brown argued he was the victim, "that officer became angry and stated that Brown had to be imprisoned because of the way Brown spoke to him," the lawsuit alleges.

He spent the night in jail, but was not charged. He was released in the morning.

The stress of the situation impacted on Brown's work performance to the point the company fired him, the lawsuit claims. Brown has since filed a separate wrongful dismissal lawsuit against the firm.

John Evans, the couple's lead litigator, said the family has been denied access to their home in the most outrageous conditions.

"There has been consistent unlawful behaviour causing huge loss to these people, and they are unprotected," Evans said.

"The Police ice will not go on their property to protect them from these activities."

Yesterday, Chatwell said police stopped her at the barricades one night and refused to allow her vehicle through.

"Police made me walk home, which was about a quarter mile away from the barricades, when the town was having a rally," she said.

"They would not walk with me in the dark."

Can you imagine it? A woman is turned out of her car by the police at an insurrectionist barricade and forced to walk home in the dark,  though a hostile area and the police won't accompany her.
I referred to the "The ongoing disgrace of Caledonia" is "disgrace" a strong enough word? Or should I have referred to the "infamy" of the OPP and the Ontario Government?

infamy - extremely bad reputation, public reproach, or strong condemnation as the result of a shameful, criminal, or outrageous act: a time that will live in infamy. (Dictionary.com)

Dave Brown and Dana Chatwell were denied their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by both the OPP and the Liberal Government of Ontario; there is a lot more to say on about the OPP and Dalton McGinty, and I will return to this theme in my next post on Lux et Veritas


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary Alberta