InstantForum.NET v4.1.41BC Civ Forumshttp://www.1bcciv.com/forums@1bcciv.comThu, 08 Jan 2009 09:24:54 GMT20http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] 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 since we ARE on the verge of economic collapse, civil war, moral implosion, military-hyper-over-extension, covert-fascist-revolution, ecological-destruction, civil disorder, pollutatory-gridlock, vindicatory-global-warming-induced-natural-cataclysm, and general malaise. [/QUOTE]muhahaha -- I'm gonna print that out and stick it to my forehead.You guys should buy tanks from America... LOTS of them!::drives off... alone... in big ole SUV:::SFri, 30 Sep 2005 10:00:46 GMTSeanhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxMy wife and I started carpooling to work a few weeks ago and we both have cars. I still see the majority of people driving alone in SUVs, pick-ups, etc... I thought the same thing. Despite all the complaining, I guess prices aren't high enough to change people's habits yet. Obviously not everyone can carpool, but I can't believe none of them have co-workers that live a short drive away.Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:40:21 GMTddmagnanhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxAt the right price, all kinds of stuff becomes practical. In the second energy crisis (1977-78) I worked on a project where the source of energy was the difference in temperature between the surface of the ocean and the depths. If you enclose a section of the ocean, water will begin to vaporize, you pass that through a turbine and condense it with cold water brought from the deep. It works too but the capital cost is humongous- huge, long pipe, huge turbine (helicopter blades gave a pretty good demo) generators, connections to land etc. One optimal location was the big island of Hawaii, deep ocean trench close to shore, expensive alternative energy etc.There are some other sources of tar sands [URL=http://www.hubbertpeak.com/tarsands/] See this [/URL]There is lots of natural gas in the Prudoe Bay field in Alaska. Problem is how to get it out. If Natural gas continues to climb in cost we may build a pipeline.Wind farms, solar power etc. There is no fuel crisis- the day I see two people in an SUV when I commute, will be the day I think gasoline prices are too high.Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:14:33 GMTScottyhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxInteresting side affect I never considered at first... But this $400 is going to pretty much everyone. So there's going to be a bunch of homeless with $400 in their pocket for a change (they were interviewing a few on the news last night). Considering most people are going to flat out spend the $400 on stuff they normally wouldn't, this will end up being a boon for the retail industry (especially considering it's happening in december).[QUOTE] Sure they have some now but when all these countries start producing oil....It's not that they will have less oil, per se, but that everyone will have oil. [/QUOTE]I think you'll find OPEC has lost much of it's authority and influence after the oil prices skyrocketed above $30 or $40 back when (2 years ago?). Oil when it's brought out of the ground (especially in Saudi... Texas was also well known for this when the black gold rush hit) it's pretty much put a straw in and watch the oil flow. Very very cheap oil comes out (thus the early cheap oil prices). As these pools drain, it gets harder and harder to get the oil out. It can still be obtained, but techniques like injecting water and other various tricks can be used... But this costs more. Most oil pools on the earth (within our reach) have now been reduced to this point... Meaning that although oil is abundant, the price of getting it out of the ground has increased alot from material/equipment needed to the shortage of skilled oil workers out there. Not saying prices will stay as high as they are right now... But you'll find the 'balanced' price will be pretty high compared to the past. If it falls beneath $40 a barrel, many oil sources suddenly become cost ineffiecient and production will shut down or at very least be limited (pushing supply down and price back up).Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:29:59 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxI'm pretty excited about getting the free 400 dollar cheque. I'll essentially get a free month of rent and a case of beer. As for the rest. I say dump a huge amount of money into Banff and Jasper National parks to build overpasses across both the Rail and TransCanda HWY for the animals. Alberta could also use better passenger train service between Calgary, Edmonton, Banff and Jasper. Maybe give a little to the National Governement to pay down some debt there. I'll have a hard time finding another Albertain who agrees with me here.Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:16 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Saudi Arabia would be in the best shape. They have been investing a lot of money into some high-tech industries in preparation for the day the oil runs dry. The rest of the Middle East is screwed as far as I know. Their governments don't use the oil money for the current needs of their citizens, much less future needs. [/QUOTE]Well perhaps I should have said OPEC (sp?). It won't be good news because now (or soon) they will have international competition. Sure they have some now but when all these countries start producing oil, it is going to be harder and harder to limit the supply of oil and thier cartel will have much less power. That was where I was going with that statement. It's not that they will have less oil, per se, but that everyone will have oil.Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:14:45 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxOne wonders if Hugo Chavez, who realizes that the Oil rent won't be so extensive for ever (he acknowledged as much at the recent UN event), has established such programmes as educating and bringing out of poverty the extremely poor and uneducated 75 percent majority because the well being of Venezueal depends upon it once the oil runs dry. ???(nevermind the fact that being a champion of the poor is the surest way to get you elected in that country, that's what got him into office and reelected 2 times, there is clearly a bigger picture here).Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:30:00 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxSaudi Arabia would be in the best shape. They have been investing a lot of money into some high-tech industries in preparation for the day the oil runs dry. The rest of the Middle East is screwed as far as I know. Their governments don't use the oil money for the current needs of their citizens, much less future needs.Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:31:00 GMTddmagnanhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxWhat would the Middle East have to export if not oil?Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:20:42 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxSo long term, what will this do to oil prices? If all these countries start refining harder to extract oil, won't that bring the price down again and make it not worth doing any more? I guess it will find a ballanced price and stay there. This cannot be good news for the Saudi family.Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:42:00 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxHehe, I like how some Canadians plant a flag, then danes, then canadians... it's kinda funny to watch.Problem is, said hill may contain millions in minerals and other natural resources... So apparently it's worth fighting forFri, 23 Sep 2005 18:18:19 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] He said the two countries will work together to try "to put this issue behind us."But Pettigrew reiterated that Canada has sovereignty over Hans Island. [/QUOTE]I _LOVE_ it! That is fricking hilarious! Like a bunch of lads playing king of the hill :pFri, 23 Sep 2005 16:29:27 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Mexico may start raking in cash too. I believe they have some large reserves of hard to refine oil as well.[/QUOTE]Very true. Theres alot of oil on this planet in forms that were never economically feasible to refine. With prices this high, pretty much any oil is now worth refining... Even to the point where it's worth countries re-evaling the resources they have to see if oil production is possible. Russia, Denmark, and canada (pretty much any nations that have claim to arctic land) will probably be continually finding new oil reserves throughout the arctic circle that were previously not even worth investigating.[URL=http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/09/19/hans-island-20050919.html]Hans Island[/URL] is a prime example. This rather desolate and meaningless island lying between Greenland (denmark) and canada was never thought to be important and was never really claimed. Now that the ices are melting, this island has great potential for natural resources (minerals mostly, but I imagine there could be gas as well) and who controls the island is being disputed.Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:08:07 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxMexico may start raking in cash too. I believe they have some large reserves of hard to refine oil as well.Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:16:39 GMTddmagnanhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Hehe, not really... It's the same corporate taxes that any country takes in. [/QUOTE]That's what I had thought.Scipio, funny post. [IMG]emot/Laugh/laugh016.gif[/IMG]Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:18:09 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxI 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? :( :D 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 since we ARE on the verge of economic collapse, civil war, moral implosion, military-hyper-over-extension, covert-fascist-revolution, ecological-destruction, civil disorder, pollutatory-gridlock, vindicatory-global-warming-induced-natural-cataclysm, and general malaise.Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:26:36 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxSpend it on a nice new prison so when all those people who got rich on the rise in the price of oil go bankrupt.... they will have somewhere nice to spend the rest of their lives :)SThu, 22 Sep 2005 02:17:06 GMTsteveaegishttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] around 9$ another 15$ for transportation, 1$ for transaction costs [/QUOTE]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 $400 rebate checks in the mail.Addit:[QUOTE]Does Canada have socialized oil too? [/QUOTE]Hehe, not really... It's the same corporate taxes that any country takes in. If you tax a corporation 10% (arbitrary number, I don't know the real number) and the company makes 100 million... Then you've got 10 million in tax income. Suddenly the oil price doubles (unexpectadely in a couple months pretty much) and this company makes 200 million. well, theres an extra 10 million in tax income that was never planned for... That money is the budget surplus that is being referred too. Pretty much money which is above and beyond the income the gov't expected to make. I beleive our budget was created with the idea oil was at 35-40 per barrel and then based spending on that. The extra price on oil has been an additional couple billion or so worth of income for the provinece above what they expected.It would be the same affect as a US state the depends primarily on farming suddenly saw the prices of food double and all farming income double.Second Addit:One opinion thats come up and goes back down pretty quickly is the notion of tax cuts or healthcare/social program funding. The problem with this money is it's exactly what it's called... Surplus. It's not a sustainable source of income and is considered a one time cash 'injection'. Tax cuts are pretty silly as they'd only be for the one year. Besides, I think Alberta has the lowest tax rates in Canada anyway.And Hamilcar... The money has pretty much already been divided 3 ways.. 400$ 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 :DWed, 21 Sep 2005 17:20:23 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxUh, business is in business to make a proffit right? Does Canada have socialized oil too? I am a little confused on how higher oil prices create a surplus. Does the increase in revenue (taxes on the companies) create an increase in funds?With regards to the surplus, I would prioritize it in this order, Infrastructure, refunds.Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:14:20 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxMaybe it will sound weird, but the cost of getting one barrel of oil out of the ground is on average roughly ... around 9$ another 15$ for transportation, 1$ for transaction costs & bureauracy and who gets the rest?Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:34:53 GMTmik1984http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxHmm, well that certainly puts a spin on things lol. However, I still believe that it should be spent on infrascructure however this time only if it's absolutely necessary. Then perhaps send the rest out in refund checks, which will hopefully still give people $100 each. So in simple math terms, 75% goes towards immediately needed infrascructure, 25% goes towards refunds.And let's also hope they never get this surplus again for the same reasons lol.Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:27:49 GMTHamilcarhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] next year they will hopefully have the same thing [/QUOTE]Hehe, watch what you say... Albertas surplus was created entirely by the sky rocketing price of oil. So 'hopefully the same thing next year' is very similar to 'hopefully oil will hit $80 a barrel and stay that way' ;).The $400 does have some immidiate good effects on the economy... In the form most people spend it as windfall on items they'd normally not purchase. So consumer sales gets a large one time boost.Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:21:44 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxUse it for infrastructure. People can't really do much with $400, but if you can use the money to improve people's lives as a whole, then by all means do it. Besides, if they have such a large surplus this year, next year they will hopefully have the same thing and perhaps use it to cheapen education or perhaps use it for more infrastructure.Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:57:53 GMTHamilcarhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1034268-56-1.aspxBig issue here that I wanted to see what the international peeps thought. A province with too much money is like yaks with a sewing machine... Nobody knows how the heck they got it and no way they know how to use it.From [URL=http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050921/ca_pr_on_na/alta_dividend_cheques]Yahoo[/URL] (I wish I could find a better source, but Yahoo seems to state everything that the other papers did plus some).Short story: Alberta has a rather large provincial budget surplus and it's being debated as far as what to do with the money. The final say by the gov't appears to be 3 different rotues will receive money, one of the more debatable portions is the gov't handing out rebate checks. Every Albertan is to receive a $400 rebate check. Any opinions? Everything from doing more infrastructure, making education free, and more healthcare 'solutions' are being brought up instead of these cheques. Though the response from the gov't is that they're fully expecting the people who don't want the rebate check will donate it to their fave causes instead (This will be a bit of a windfall for organizations depending on donations).(The other 2 paths that got money from the surplus involved infrastructure and other gov't funded agencies getting more money, including a few university upgrades)Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:17:46 GMTSeared