Oh good then we British Columbian’s can look forward to lower gas bills each month!

Actually higher bills are likely. Get used to paying world prices. The good news is higher prices encourage conservation of this natural resource. After all, everyone on this forum is a wannabe greenie and shouldn’t be using natural gas or propane since it is a product of fracking. Gotta practice what we preach don’t ya know?

“generating more immediate reinvestment opportunities”

So they really do not care about providing a product/service for customers. They care about putting their money to where the best return is projected.

Seems to be more and more the problem with the world.Not about providing goods and services for a profit, but providng it for the largest profit. In other words, flipping companies, flippling properties, flipping any asset while the going is hot is what it is all about.

I think that Dragonmaster is still trying to remove his tongue out of his cheek. LOL

gus: “Seems to be more and more the problem with the world.Not about providing goods and services for a profit, but providng it for the largest profit.”

By George, I think he gets it!

They have to try and export this gas to keep the local prices up. If they just produced for the North American market, with all the gas around, we would get much cheaper gas. We would be able to run a lot of industry on cheap gas, and also generate electricity, that would make projects like Site C, a thing of the past.

Heaven forbid that we should look after our local long term interests. Better to export the gas, (ie jobs) and keep the prices high, so that Canadian/American interests can continue to be eroded by the International Money Mongers.

The only difference between International money hungry monopolies, and a tree full of monkeys is that the monkeys make a contribution to society, if for no other reason than they are entertaining. Monopolies on the other hand are a bane on society.

gus: “Seems to be more and more the problem with the world.Not about providing goods and services for a profit, but providing it for the largest profit.”
—————————————–

What else could we expect when profit as a percentage of sales continues to decline in virtually every industry? This is more of a macro-economic problem that runs across the whole economy of EVERY modern industrialised country than what it’s usually put down to, i.e. corporate greed. It’s what really causes the trend towards monopoly, which is indeed a “bane on society”. But if we want to stop that trend we have to first understand what causes it ~ why profits for the independent producer are continually shrinking as a percentage of sales in the face of a world which is continually lowering the costs of production through advancing technology and improvements in process.

One side of my family tree has been in the same business for over 150 years. They make enough money to sustain themselves at a very good level of personal income for work done. Obviously they have been sustainable to date – some 7 generations.

If they account for all cost of doing business over the 15 decades, including renewing their infrastructure for carrying on the business, training,, etc. etc. as well as the salaries they pay themselves as well as other re-investment in the business, then why do they need any profits? Even setting aside money for a rainy day should not be considered as a profit.

A cmpany I was working for at one time put an automatic 10 to 15 percent profit on bids to arrive at a final price. Needless to say they did not get many projects other than small ones that larger companies did not bid on. The standard profit mark-up by larger firms on such bids was 2%.

Well, I think your relatives business, so far as accountancy is concerned, would keep its books the same way as every other business, Gus. They would have a Balance Sheet, a Profit and Loss Statement, and a Statement of Cash Flow. There is always a great deal of confusion over the way these three things relate to one another, and what ‘profit’ really is.

Many still believe that a business profit is simply a surplus of cash received over cash disbursed. As might be the case in a simple one time personal transaction where you sell something you bought for more than you paid for it.

This is NOT the case in modern business accounting however, because modern productive methods involve ever increasing CAPITAL as well as Labor, and an ever increasing DIVISION of that Labor as well.

And so the days when a ‘profit’ of the craftsman who used tools of the simplest nature was indistinguishable from his ‘wages’ and “all craft was handicraft” as he took some raw material right through to some finished good are pretty well gone.

Today’s ‘profit’ is the operational difference between Sales and ‘Expense’, and is more in the nature of something intangible ~ information, actually ~ than something actual. It’s function is to indicate the correctness of some line of entrepreneurial action as a ‘producer’ attempts to serve the ‘consumer’. It’s the way that Consumers give orders to Producers ~ a feedback mechanism for them to express their preferences on what will be made, or not made.

A lot of simplistic views here. Look at it this way…

If prices aren’t at a minimum level, there is no exploration. If there is no exploration, there is no gas (lower supply) and prices go up anyway.

Prices have to be in excess of costs, in other words. Or the inducement to explore and produce vanishes until they are. I don’t believe anyone consciously does anything that is not, in some way, profitable.

But the way that business accounting works takes a lot of *today’s* costs (what’s actually spent in terms of cash flow) and pushes them forward in time so that they can be ‘expensed’ against *tomorrow’s* Sales. Which are prospectively going to be greater than *today’s* Sales as a result of that spending (investment).

Profit in double-entry accrual accounting is NOT ‘cash’ Receipts minus ‘cash’ Disbursements, (which, in general, in any period of economic expansion, will actually be negative in terms of Cash Flow ~ Firms will typically be spending more than they are receiving), but rather Sales minus ‘Expense’. Which will typically show Firms as being profitable in that period.

gus: “Seems to be more and more the problem with the world.Not about providing goods and services for a profit, but providng it for the largest profit.”

By George, I think he gets it!
///
IT’s a Christmas Miricle Johnny

This development will help fund provincial revenues for decades. This is a whole new industry with high end jobs. I can’t believe the moronic posts on here.

“This development will help fund provincial revenues for decades”

And then what?

What will those revenues be used for?

If they will not be used to develop industries which create new wealth through the use of human imagination rather than picking finite resources to help others do what we seem to not have the smarts to do, then we will be no better off.

I am not quite sure how extracting natural gas and sending it to market is a new industry. I thought we started doing that at least 40 to 50 years ago when a transcanada pipeline sent it to Eastern Canada.

I call that expanding an old industry.

“This development will help fund provincial revenues for decades”

And then what?

What will those revenues be used for?”

Gus, what are you saying? The companies developing this project shouldnt be allowed to go forward without submitting a plan for 40 years down the road to replace revenue’s to the province when the supply dries up?

Frankly I find your thought process to be far to fantasy and fairytale like and a sense of realism is needed.

That would have been like the powers to be saying to the developers of Lakeland Mills 30 years ago, “you cant build this mill because in 30 years it might burn down then what will all the workers do?” When in fact they supplied 30 years of solid employment to their staff.

“Protect your Capital, and live off the Income.” Is the Province doing this with the revenues it will receive from a depleting resource? Or is it living off the Capital, which will indeed create a shortfall of revenues when this resource is gone?

Contrast BC’s approach with that of the State of Alaska. Which has a “Permanent Fund” into which oil and gas royalties are paid. These revenues are then invested ~ not in silly Alaskan ‘make work’ projects that will never have a hope in Hell of ever turning a dollar in profit, but in the stocks and bonds of various enterprises anywhere with a proven or highly prospective ability to generate and pay a good return on investment.

Part of these annual returns are added to the Fund, while the rest of this income is distributed to each and every Alaskan citizen as an annual dividend. For each citizen to spend, save, invest, or do whatever he or she chooses to do with it.

If the State wants to finance new public infrastructure it must then come to the people to get their agreement that they are willing to approve any tax increases necessary. It doesn’t just get to divert oil and gas royalties to some politician’s pet project. Thereby bypassing one of the cornerstones of any democratic State ~ that all funding of government must come from the People and be sanctioned by them.

By doing what they have done, Alaskans are indeed ‘protecting their Capital’, and setting the stage, albeit in a small way so far, when the ‘dividend’ will replace the ‘wage’ as the fundamental means of distributing human incomes. Something that is only logical in any society where the continuing advances of technology are increasingly displacing human labor as the source of wealth.

Thanks for bringing up the forest tenure analogy, old white man. :-)

In order to harvest wood from a timber license the licensee has to adhere to the conditions of the license which are intended to maintain the sustainability of the timber and to process the timber locally into a marketable product such as lumber and pulp at a minimum. In addition, they have to replenish the harvested areas with trees to a free to grow status before they can leave the area in nature’s hands. In order to do that, 5 year plans are required which have to be presented to the public in the region for comment. In addition, in order to sell products in the marketplace in North America and likely Europe, they have to have a “green stamp” which puts marketplace restrictions on the products.

When pine beetle devastate the forests and cut timber supply, we are dealing with human error, as is the case with mills burning down. The mills burning down can be taken care of via insurance, the same as some oil spills or gas explosions can be taken care of. Running out of trees or gas or oil, or other natural resources is not quite the same. But, they are predictable and we can prepare ourselves for them or simply accept them.

So, let me take what we have been doing with trees and apply that to oil and gas and even minerals since, like trees, they belong to the province and those who mine them and determine what is to be done with them from a marketing point of view have to get a license with appropriate conditions attached and pay royalties to the province for extracting the riches which belong to the people of the province.

1.Submit a complete plan – this is being done to the best of my knowledge; not sure if 5 to 10 year updates are required

2.meet some standard of maximizing local employment to keep money in the region from where the resources are removed – this is not being done as far as I can tell

3.“replenish” the inventory by exploring for new resource locations – there is no requirement for this I believe.

4.Bring all disturbances back to as found condition, including abandoned pipelines, processing plants, etc.

5.Look to setting up private marketing standard associations which address all such issues in the public domain.

So, if someone can help me by telling me that in the case of non renewable resources there is a reasoanble consideration being given to use the resource locally, nationally, continentally before the rest is shipped off to other parts of the world, you will make me a happy camper.

I just feel that the same standard as is used for renewable resources is not applied and the country does not benefit as much as it could.

Socredible describes one of the approaches which could be done in the case of non-renewable resources.

gus:-“So, if someone can help me by telling me that in the case of non renewable resources there is a reasoanble consideration being given to use the resource locally, nationally, continentally before the rest is shipped off to other parts of the world, you will make me a happy camper.”

============================================

To make the present system of finance work every country must try to run a so-called ‘favorable’ Balance of Trade in its overall dealings with other nations.

This is currently necessitated by the FACT that no country anywhere has an economy that is FULLY financially ‘self-liquidating’. All ‘costs’, in other words, as presently accounted for, can NOT be fully liquidated from ‘incomes’ distributed through employment concurrently.

Because those ‘incomes’ are only a PART of those ‘costs’.

And become ever the less so as the overall economy increasingly industrialises and displaces human labor as a factor in production with technological advances.

This creates what could be viewed as a ‘gap’ between the rate that ‘costs’ are continually being impressed into ‘prices’ at the point of final retail sale for all the goods and services we produce or provide, and the rate that ‘incomes’ are simultaneously being distributed, mainly still through employment as wages and salaries.

This ‘gap’, over any extended time, is continually widening. Short term, it is presently narrowed two ways. Through ‘loan credit’ or ‘export credit’.

The first leaves increasing debt, the totality of which is unrepayable save at the cost of still larger debt so long as that cost can be borne.

The second leaves no debt in the country with the ‘favorable’ trade balance, and goes some way towards narrowing the ‘gap’ in that country. But it does so by widening the ‘gap’ somewhere else, in some other country, or countries. Indebting it instead, with a debt growth it can’t ever repay, and finds ever the more difficult to service.

Giving lie to the ‘global village’ ideal of the world as one big marketplace whose peoples will all be advantaged through being competitive with each other. Such a competition under the current financial system is indeed a ‘race to the bottom’.

It impoverishes the people of the country with the negative trade balance, through debts they will never be able to continue to service, let alone ever repay, while it enslaves the workers of the country with the positive trade balance as they have to continually ‘cut costs’ to try to maintain “full employment” ~ something which is physically impossible, since the ‘costs’ they are cutting are LABOR ‘costs’ ~ their own ‘incomes’, taken overall. And those ‘incomes’, taken collectively, are already inadequate to fully liquidate the ‘costs’ they were only a PART of.

This leads to the most grotesque anomalies imaginable. Some of which we are witnessing in Europe right now, as country after country that bought into the “we’re all one big ‘global village’ idea” watch their domestic economies tank. Economies like Ireland’s, for example, held up as a shining example of unbridled ‘prosperity’ only a few short years ago.

Mired in debts they can never hope to repay, for their international ‘creditors’ can not allow them to be repaid without importing the same problem, a decline in their own ‘favorable’ trade balance.

In the end, debts are “written off”, and the process begins anew. But does anyone ever ask WHY if those debts can be dispensed with this way time and time again, could not the same sums be applied internally, in each country, to close the ‘gap’ in the first place?

Where is the problem? It simply involves establishing and maintaining a proper nexus between overall national ‘production’ and overall national ‘consumption’ financially, and augmenting overall ‘incomes’ to the extent they can more fully liquidate ‘costs’. This is really no more difficult than any bookkeeper making an accounting adjustment when an inventory is taken, and the ‘figures’ showing what is in stock don’t match the ‘facts’ revealed by actually counting what’s really there.

Gus, LNG exports are a NEW industry. We don’t currantly export via ship. NE BC has vast reserves that are landlocked without these terminals.

What would the government do with this revenue you ask. What a stunned question. Look around. Schools, roads, hospitals, cancer centres, powerlines, etc,etc