|
|
|
Gas prices.
- Thread starter nobbie48
- Start date
I think everyone will go to prepay tech as they are forced to upgrade . Nobody can trust anyone anymore .
Travel in the US we filled at a lot of prepay spots where you go in, hand them xxx in cash and then go back in for your change . Not efficient, but they don’t loose gas
Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com
Travel in the US we filled at a lot of prepay spots where you go in, hand them xxx in cash and then go back in for your change . Not efficient, but they don’t loose gas
Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com
DownUnder
Well-known member
Not a fan of this clown , but people are seriously blaming him for Putin attacking ukraine, Biden destroying America's oil industry, then canceling Keystone, and Trudeau adding carbon taxes... that's a bit of a stretch.
The carbon tx should be JTs undoing. It will be very effective for adding revenue, it will do Zero to emissions . IMO.
That said with the taxes being a percentage of price , there is billions of revenue heading to Ottawa that was not in the budget. And Alberta is several billion ahead this year.
The big question with all this "found" oil and gas tax surplus can JT and Christa Freeland not hold hands and shuffle dance through the federal coffers and give away millions more. Can any restraint be shown?
That said with the taxes being a percentage of price , there is billions of revenue heading to Ottawa that was not in the budget. And Alberta is several billion ahead this year.
The big question with all this "found" oil and gas tax surplus can JT and Christa Freeland not hold hands and shuffle dance through the federal coffers and give away millions more. Can any restraint be shown?
Why show any restraint at all? They have proven to themselves that spending like a fifo worker at the strip club is very effective for them (and has the added benefit of enriching their friends).
AllistonGT
Well-known member
Agreed
It's the liberal way (accept Chretien - Martin). No one should be surprised by this. Spending your money freely is a liberals wet dream.
NEED FASTER
Well-known member
It has nothing to do with environment. It has everything to do with revenue into slush funds.
NEED FASTER
Well-known member
A few years ago, in northern Ontario (Moonbeam), pulled the bike up to the pump, took off my helmet, filled the bike and wandered inside to pay. The attendant didn't even know I was there.
NEED FASTER
Well-known member
That was my point. Sorry for not being a little more to the point.
AM 800 CKLW | Windsor’s Information Station - iHeartRadio
Listen to AM 800 CKLW, Windsor's Newstalk information station. Explore local and national news, exciting shows, contests, podcasts & upcoming events.
www.iheartradio.ca
Will they remove the fee once fuel prices go down, if ever?AM 800 CKLW | Windsor’s Information Station - iHeartRadio
Listen to AM 800 CKLW, Windsor's Newstalk information station. Explore local and national news, exciting shows, contests, podcasts & upcoming events.
Or is it one of those things where you add a fee for a reason, then when the reason goes away....the fee stays. EDIT: We will see in 60 days.
It sounds good but the problem is that too many parts of the world cannot ban their oil as they are too reliant so it does not cut off supply of cash! So what we have now is a partial ban by just some western countries, and that is the best we can do right now. Lets say $100/barrel (easy math) to start and 2.8M barrels a day leaving Russia. pre-partial ban that was $280M revenue per day.
The current bans hit maybe 20% of their total exports (tops), the other 80% cannot ban their oil anytime in the near future as they need it (parts of Western Europe for example, at best a 5 year plan) this is due to existing infrastructure etc. But in the end they can move away from it today so cannot ban it. So oil exports drop to 2.24M barrels and at $100 per barrel assuming the banning does not spike the price, which it did a bit but it has also come back a bit, we get $224M revenue per day. The risk of bans is that they also result in an oil price increase that is harder to control.
Option two, no immediate bans but massive production ramp up (US, Canada, OPEC etc.) and instead of banning just stop buying wherever possible (or even tariffs or eventual bans). Drive crude oil down to $50 per barrel in a few weeks. IF Russia can still sell the 2.8M barrels per day their revenue drops to $140M per day, a much bigger hit and less time to react. Even more if the partial bans come in after the price hits.
It also better protects the economies of the west. It is really an order of operation thing but banning feels good first, when we really should be driving the price down first as that hurts Russia more.
The wrinkle as noted before is Saudi is basically OPEC and last US president threatened the Saudis if they did not stop the price/production war with Russia in 2020. So they are in no hurry to help the west today.
Canada's forests actually release more carbon than they capture today. It has been that was since ~2005. There is this alternative facts thing that keeps going around that ignores forest release and just compares absorption to human CO2 production in this country. This meme is been debunked over and over.
Trees are made of carbon, it gets released in many ways when they die. They release that carbon as CO2 when they burn, when they decompose etc. We have done a very poor job of managing the forests to prevent this.
sburns
Well-known member
Exactly, but not to say we shouldn't do anything to help deal with pollution. But this carbon tax is being sold as something we all know is not going to be put to the intended use. The people who have burdened us with this will eventually leave office and the new gov coming in will just finger point, not our problem throw up their hands with nothing, and the vicious cycle will repeat.
If I had the idea to move the country to environmentally friendly solutions I would exploit that oil resource to death and raise a chit ton of taxes to build up a Canadian made green energy industry with the purpose of finding viable solutions to reliance on oil, then have a alternative solution avail so people can transition. Not this farce.
But you are trying to do something that makes sense. All politicians would rather virtue signal than make a useful change and JT pushes that agenda to an entirely new level. Literally saying one thing publicly and then issuing private instructions to public servants to do the exact opposite.
Are you suggesting that the wino I just gave money to for food is going to buy booze with it instead?
sburns
Well-known member
Yes
|
|
|
|
|