|
| | 
I am pot
 
Last Seen:
4/4/2006 6:06 PM
Posts: 1,670
Visits: 2,512
|
| | |
| | Veteran Warlord
Last Seen:
6/26/2006 7:08 PM
Posts: 210
Visits: 1,353
|
| | |
| |
I am pot
Last Seen:
4/4/2006 6:06 PM
Posts: 1,670
Visits: 2,512
|
| | |
| | Veteran Warlord
Last Seen:
6/26/2006 7:08 PM
Posts: 210
Visits: 1,353
|
| | |
| | Veteran Sceptic
Last Seen:
3/3/2008 5:09 PM
Posts: 367
Visits: 579
|
| | |
| | 
Elite Pathogen
Last Seen:
Today @ 5:21 PM
Posts: 4,421
Visits: 10,979
|
| | |
| |
I am pot
Last Seen:
4/4/2006 6:06 PM
Posts: 1,670
Visits: 2,512
|
| around 9$ another 15$ for transportation, 1$ for transaction costs
Thats relatively correct (a lil low on the cost to pull out of the ground, and the transaction/taxes is quite a bit higher too)... But for sweet wells in Albertas south. These are the ones where you can put a straw into the ground and have useable oil flood to the surface.
That resource is limited and is pretty much drying up. There are methods of continuing to refine this and come closer to 100% recovery (an impossible goal, but the idea is t recover as much as possible) which push up the cost to get it out of the ground.
For $20 a barrel and less, the only oil that was being pulled out of the ground was the really easy to get stuff. Saudi Arabia is sitting on a huge amount of this (and is why it's widely known as having the largest gas reserves). The problem with the $20 a barrel is you're not recovering all the oil/gas.
When oil and gas hit $30 a barrel, techniques that got closer to all of the gas and oil out of a well becomes more cost-effeicient. Old wells that had previously been covered are being reopened and these new techniques are getting closer to 100% of the oil from them.
Around $35 a barrel, Coal bed Methane becomes cost feasable. Limited knowledge about how this works, but it did significantly improve Albertas 'ultimate oil potential'. Pretty much coal slowly degrades to methane, and we can harvest this gas.
Around $35 - $40 per barrel (plus transportation and other costs), the 'final' oil source becomes feasible. Oil and tar sands contain great potential, however the recovery techniques put the cost so high that only recently when the prices of oil exceeded $40 per barrel was it even considered. Now that oil is as expensive as it has become, the oil sands were finally weighed out and judged (really only this year). New techniques still coming out, but the process is still pretty expensive. If you include these oils sands (apparently unique to alberta and saskatchewan), the amount of oil that Alberta is sitting on totals several trillion barrels (I beleive it's 4.31 trillion, at current rates this will last over 100 years fyi), which puts it well above Sauid oil reserves. It's only been really recent that these oil sands are being explored and Alberta is going through some boom times because of it (I think the unemployment rate and voluntary unemployment rate are the same... If you can't get a job here, somethings wrong with ya). Note the $400 rebate checks in the mail.
Addit:
Does Canada have socialized oil too?
Hehe, not really... It's the same corporate taxes that any country takes in. If you tax a corporation 10% (arbitrary number, I don't know the real number) and the company makes 100 million... Then you've got 10 million in tax income. Suddenly the oil price doubles (unexpectadely in a couple months pretty much) and this company makes 200 million. well, theres an extra 10 million in tax income that was never planned for... That money is the budget surplus that is being referred too. Pretty much money which is above and beyond the income the gov't expected to make. I beleive our budget was created with the idea oil was at 35-40 per barrel and then based spending on that. The extra price on oil has been an additional couple billion or so worth of income for the provinece above what they expected.
It would be the same affect as a US state the depends primarily on farming suddenly saw the prices of food double and all farming income double.
Second Addit:
One opinion thats come up and goes back down pretty quickly is the notion of tax cuts or healthcare/social program funding. The problem with this money is it's exactly what it's called... Surplus. It's not a sustainable source of income and is considered a one time cash 'injection'. Tax cuts are pretty silly as they'd only be for the one year. Besides, I think Alberta has the lowest tax rates in Canada anyway.
And Hamilcar... The money has pretty much already been divided 3 ways.. 400$ is a third of the money. 1/3 is going to infrastructure (roads in the oil sands regions interestingly enough) and another 1/3 went to misc projects that needed one time funding (like university upgrades or water supply)... So I think we're doing very similiar to what you're saying (33% to rebates and 66% to others). Thanks for your input  |
--
--- Shouldn't we be too concerned with terror and war to be discussing this right now? --- |  |  |
| |
| | 
Second Lieutenant
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 1:49 AM
Posts: 1,434
Visits: 2,291
|
| | |
| | 
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Today @ 8:02 PM
Posts: 7,354
Visits: 9,706
|
| I think you guys should rush 40 or 50 Modern Armors, then do an ROP abuse against US. Heck, with all their marines, Modern Inf, and Modern Armors in Iraq/Afghanistan, PLUS! all the "national guardsmen" (which we all know are actually obsolete "Infantry" units) busy down there in Louisana, most of the cities probably only have archaic "police units" (probably riflemen, upgraded from musketmen back in 1950s) guarding them right now. You guys might be able to get a Domination win in a couple turns? 
Well no, waitaminute. You'd still only have about 20% of the land area, and you'd face some serious civil disorder, at least in the Jesusland cities. Plus, the Russians, and Chinese might take this as an opportunity to disgorge their nukes/million man armies into North America . . . :confused:
Hmmm, maybe infrastructure IS the best plan. Either that or you could make a large one time gp donation to the US. We could certainly USE it |
|
|
|
