[ROCKMAN]

Mr. Bill,

Back to the subject of resource depletion. I've seen bits and pieces regarding the Canadian gov't plans to supply energy to the tar sands but not sure if I have the current status.

At one time the gov't had approved plans to build 25(?) nuclear plants in the tar sand fields to source the needed steam???

But within the last year the gov't has cancelled those plans??

I've also read in order to expnad from 1.1 mmbopd to the potential 3 to 5 mmbopd would require the water resources of the entire Athabasca basin (home to 300,000 native Canadians?)

Given the Canadia is our biggest supplier of imported oil this shoyuld be of interest to us "southerners"

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
') I cannot let untrue statements or over-generalizations go unchallenged as that is tacit approval. This is not a peer reviewed academic journal, and personal opinions are welcome, but I intend to hold this forum to a certain minimum standard

[Denny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'M')r. Bill,

I've also read in order to expnad from 1.1 mmbopd to the potential 3 to 5 mmbopd would require the water resources of the entire Athabasca basin (home to 300,000 native Canadians?)

[MrBill]

Threadbear making money in an inflationary environment by investing in precious metals is like hitting water by falling out of a boat. Thanks for your kind offer, but I do not need investment advice. Cheers.

Your input is as valued here as anyone's. But opinons are opinions and facts can be substantiated. I could have taken you to task over your statements about Canadian politics and politicians being controlled by big business (my paraphrasing), but I just chose to ignore that as obviously it is your personal opinion, and I know it is not true.

I am only one of many Moderators on this site, but I will moderate this forum on Depletion Economics in-line with the Economic forum posting guidelines posted at the top of the Forum Index page. And as a poster like anyone else I am entitled to my own opinions. If you have a problem with that then you should take it up with the site's Administrator. As I said, it is nothing personal.

Rockman I really do not know what is going on the Athabasca oilsands at the moment? I am too far away from it and I do not know anyone that is personally up there working. There were plans to put one nuclear reactor in Peace River. I have not heard anything to the effect that those plans have been changed? Perhaps it is still in the planning and review stages at the moment? I think using natural gas is a tremendous waste of precious energy.

As for water use I really doubt there are 300.000 native indians living in the Athabasca water basin (my opinion I have no facts at my finger tips), but obviously the only environmentally acceptable solution as per Denny's suggestion is a closed system and water recycling. Energy from the tarsands cannot come at the expense of destroying the environment. That would be unacceptable for Albertans and Canadians despite what posters on Wikipedia (or the Sierra Club) might say.

Here are two competing view points for consideration.

Alberta Environment

Down to the Last Drop

UPDATE: dirty oil
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')ierre Alvarez of the Canadian Association of Oil Producers, said such a resolution would be almost impossible to enforce because a litre of fuel cannot be traced back to the oil from which it was produced.

Alvarez said his organization needs to do a better job of educating people about the environmental impact of oil production.

"We've been great at talking about the economic issues," said Alvarez. "I think maybe we need to spend a little more time talking about the environmental issues."

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlueGhostNo2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 't')hreadbear wrote:
It is really nothing personal. I am only here to talk about post peak oil resource depletion economics. Period. Everything else is a waste of my time and energy. I already know what I know about banking, finance, economics and markets. I may pick-up some useful information here from other posters, but not enough relative to the time I invest here. However, if our goal is to talk about resource depletion economics then we have to speak a common language. I cannot let untrue statements or over-generalizations go unchallenged as that is tacit approval. This is not a peer reviewed academic journal, and personal opinions are welcome, but I intend to hold this forum to a certain minimum standard. Otherwise it is a waste of everyone's time to post here. I promise that I will never follow you or anyone else into the Open forum or anywhere else, so you can post anything you like there.

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'M')r. Bill,

Back to the subject of resource depletion. I've seen bits and pieces regarding the Canadian gov't plans to supply energy to the tar sands but not sure if I have the current status.

At one time the gov't had approved plans to build 25(?) nuclear plants in the tar sand fields to source the needed steam???

But within the last year the gov't has cancelled those plans??

I've also read in order to expnad from 1.1 mmbopd to the potential 3 to 5 mmbopd would require the water resources of the entire Athabasca basin (home to 300,000 native Canadians?)

Given the Canadia is our biggest supplier of imported oil this shoyuld be of interest to us "southerners"

[ROCKMAN]

Thanks for the lead Dude. I was planning to dig into the subject over lunch today so we can have a little clarity here.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'T')hreadbear making money in an inflationary environment by investing in precious metals is like hitting water by falling out of a boat. Thanks for your kind offer, but I do not need investment advice. Cheers.

Your input is as valued here as anyone's. But opinons are opinions and facts can be substantiated. I could have taken you to task over your statements about Canadian politics and politicians being controlled by big business (my paraphrasing), but I just chose to ignore that as obviously it is your personal opinion, and I know it is not true.

I am only one of many Moderators on this site, but I will moderate this forum on Depletion Economics in-line with the Economic forum posting guidelines posted at the top of the Forum Index page. And as a poster like anyone else I am entitled to my own opinions. If you have a problem with that then you should take it up with the site's Administrator. As I said, it is nothing personal.

[MrBill]

Now it is just getting ridiculous. If you're going to paraphrase me at least be accurate. I double dare you to find any post where I 'assume' much less state publicly that you are poor or are on welfare? I have a couple of oil & gas funds as well as an Asian growth fund that have also done well since the late 90s. So? I lost a bundle in a pre-IPO start-up of an ag bio-tech company that I still believe was a good play. Right place at the wrong time. I take my losses (and my gains) and move on. Its called trading.

When the price of our Russian oil & gas play jumped from $64 to $114 this year we made some $750 million. So what? They are just paper gains. We can only realize those profits by selling out a core, strategic position. And even then we would have to re-invest in something else that may well go down in value. So instead we bought a put-call collar and borrowed against the value of the put. So that we could invest that money elsewhere to diversify our market risks. All of which has nothing to do with peak oil or depletion economics. Specific investing ideas are best discussed in Trader's Corner.

If the government(s) collect my taxes - a tax on my labor - that amount to more than 50% of my annual income (not an unrealistic assumption in Canada counting direct and indirect taxes) then I assume they would do something productive with that money. Otherwise, what a waste!

I think I paid some 66% taxes on my last paycheque in Germany. Ouch! Germany says that 75% of all Germans rely on some form of wealth transfer from the government. Well, no kidding? If the government collects so many taxes then almost by default they are going to have to give something back to taxpayers. I do not call that enlightened. I call it for the hubris that it is.

Simplify and lower taxes and then the government will not have to spend so much money collecting them, deciding how to divide that money up amoung many competing claims and then spend more money transfering that money back to its citizens. Why not just collect an even 100% and then cut each person a cheque at the end of the month? It would be more efficient (and more honest)!

It is my opinion that your faith in government is misguided. I also do not believe in the goodness and unselfishness of your ordinary man. If I did then we would not need police to enforce traffic laws. Just post a speed limit and drivers would obey. A No Parking sign would suffice instead of putting up parking barricades. But alas, that is not the case.

So, therefore, in the absence of enlightened government, and the tragedy of the common man, I believe that only markets can achieve the desired social and economic result. Not free and unfettered markets. Governments have a role to make sure markets are open, fair, transparent and to prevent fraud and market abuse.

There is a need to properly price and tax the externalities of economic activity. I do not believe in privatizing profits and socializing risk or environmental clean-up. If there was no role for government we would not need them. They would be an unnecessary expense. But it is the price signals that markets send that need to guide efficient, wealth producing economic activities. Then if you want to tax that wealth creation to sheild society's most vulnerable? Fine, so be it.

So I am not belittling your opinions. You are welcome to them. You are welcome to disagree with mine. The basis of a civilized debate is respecting other people's right to have a different opinion. Your input here is as appreciated as anyone's. The common goal here is to discuss issues related to resource depletion. It is my opinion that there is no right answer, but I do believe there are many wrong ones.

UPDATE: thankfully some governments suffer less from BIC Syndrome than others
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')tatistics Canada says federal, provincial, territorial and local governments racked up a combined surplus of $28.1 billion last year, the fourth year in a row that the black ink has totalled more than $20 billion.

The agency says the total surplus includes those of the Canada and Quebec pension plans.

The report says overall government revenues over the last five years have grown at an average annual rate of 5.7 per cent, while expenditures rose an average of 4.8 per cent.

Income taxes alone have risen by more than 50 per cent over the last five years.

The report says almost two thirds of all government spending went to health, education and social services

Spending on debt charges, in contrast, fell to 7.4 per cent of total expenditures last year from 10.3 per cent in 2003.

The federal government, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia all recorded surpluses in the 2008 fiscal year 2008, while Ontario and Quebec ran deficits.

[MrBill]

“I believe that deep in their heart everyone working on social insects is aware that the selection that created them is multilevel selection,” Dr. Wilson said
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')r. Wilson was not picking a fight when he published “Sociobiology” in 1975, a synthesis of ideas about the evolution of social behavior. He asserted that many human behaviors had a genetic basis, an idea then disputed by many social scientists and by Marxists intent on remaking humanity. Dr. Wilson was amazed at what ensued, which he describes as a long campaign of verbal assault and harassment with a distinctly Marxist flavor led by two Harvard colleagues, Richard C. Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould.

The new fight is one Dr. Wilson has picked. It concerns a central feature of evolution, one with considerable bearing on human social behaviors. The issue is the level at which evolution operates. Many evolutionary biologists have been persuaded, by works like “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins, that the gene is the only level at which natural selection acts. Dr. Wilson, changing his mind because of new data about the genetics of ant colonies, now believes that natural selection operates at many levels, including at the level of a social group.

It is through multilevel or group-level selection — favoring the survival of one group of organisms over another — that evolution has in Dr. Wilson’s view brought into being the many essential genes that benefit the group at the individual’s expense. In humans, these may include genes that underlie generosity, moral constraints, even religious behavior. Such traits are difficult to account for, though not impossible, on the view that natural selection favors only behaviors that help the individual to survive and leave more children.