Ms. Hawkwood’s rebuttal letter of Aug. 9, confirms she finally agrees that the royalty rates on conventional wells are indeed one to nine per cent, not one per cent as she falsely claimed in her original letter. However, she then states that “once the investment has been entirely repaid, the oil company will be charged the modest rates mentioned.” Wrong! In fact, data from Alberta’s Environment and Natural Resources Department states: During the pre-payment period, royalty rates will be one to nine per cent of gross revenue depending on the individual well's production and oil prices. During post-payment, royalty rates are 25 to 40 per cent. For example, when oil is priced at $55 per barrel, the rate is 25 per cent of net profits, when oil is at $120 per barrel; the rate is 40 per cent of net profits. Also, according to data provided by the Law Library of Congress, Canada’s oil royalty rates compare with rates throughout the world. Examples include Romania, Nigeria, China and Algeria with rates of 3.5 to 13.5, eight to 20, five to 10 and 5.5 to 20 per cent respectively. Hawkwood also incorrectly suggested that I “falsely” indicated that the royalty rates I described were applicable to non-conventional hydraulically fractured wells. I made no such statement! The only reference I made to hydraulic fracturing was that this procedure created “potential problems” and I support the comments by Ms. Patricia Pearsall-Pickup in her well-written and researched July 26 letter when she stated that this practise poses a serious threat. For Ms. Hawkwood to state that hydraulic fracturing is an “ongoing disaster” is her opinion. Ms.Hawkwood’s criticism of royalty rates, oil companies and their practises remain misleading. To suggest that oil companies must be required to pay the majority of environmental costs because of the “demonstrably high level of emissions they cause” was once true. In fact, in 2014, green house gas emissions from oil sands plants were already 31 per cent below 1990 levels and have been dropping every year. The World Resources Institute recently confirmed that oil and gas corporations around the world have reduced GHG emissions from 6.4 per cent in 2008 to 3.1 per cent today. Contrary to Ms Hawkwood’s implied suggestion that we should be spending more effort and resources on developing renewable resources, perhaps she’s not aware that oil companies are heavily invested in wind turbine developments around the world today? Ms. Hawkwood is correct about “following the money.” When it comes to Canada’s competitive economic future, all we need do is recall Obama’s visit to Canada during which he disingenuously beat the Paris Accord environmental drum, complimented Trudeau over his carbon tax plans, while permitting an expanded American hydraulic fracturing program that has made the U.S. a major oil exporter without applying a similar tax! Compare this with our absence of pipelines, locked-in oil resources and importation of oil from countries with terrible human rights records like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. Current Trudeau policies, supported by oil company detractors, are destroying our economic future. I fear for the socialist direction of the country I was once so proud to serve. Ms. Hawkwood suggests that Canada should be leading in efforts to reduce environmental problems? We have been leaders for years! Canada led in establishing the rules that are reviving the Great Lakes from acid rain. In 1987, Canada held the Montreal Protocol meetings to engage the world in the problems associated with the destruction of the ozone. Ozone depletion is caused by the use of chlorofluorocarbons. The discontinued use of these chemicals was finally made in 1996. Hawkwood went on to suggest that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with what “others do or don’t do” regarding the environment? We had better concern ourselves with the selfishness of other countries! (China finally agreed to eliminate the use of chlorofluorocarbons in 2013, but according to the Environmental Investigation Agency, these chemicals continue to be used in the manufacture of insulation materials in China today)! To conclude, I make two points; Canada must demand that other countries do their part if we are to save the planet from destruction. Next, considering that industrial investment in Canada has decreased some 40 per cent since 2016, all the oil company detractors had better be prepared to invest in marijuana, otherwise there will be nothing left in our treasury to pay the billions of dollars of debt our governments have borrowed for the past several years. I challenge anyone to refute my arguments, including Ms. Hawkwood. L. Leugner
