Prepared for: Dr. J. Doucet BUEC 560. Prepared by: Damian Zapisocky, CA, CIA

Transcription

1 IS ALBERTA S INVESTMENT IN THE SUSTAINABILITY FUND A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION THAN SPENDING AIMED AT FURTHER INCREASING NATURAL RESOURCES ROYALTIES AND CORPORATE TAXES FROM OILSANDS PROJECTS? Prepared for: Dr. J. Doucet BUEC 560 Prepared by: Damian Zapisocky, CA, CIA Date: June 20 th, 2005

2 Executive Summary Fort McMurray is currently facing a crisis in infrastructure. Its rapid growth over the past decade has come at the cost of being in a large infrastructure deficit as spending has not kept pace with growth. There are a number of critical infrastructure projects requiring funding, including a tertiary water treatment plant which is an immediate constraint to housing growth. In 2003 the Province created a Sustainability Fund, a fund that would be used to help offset years in which energy revenues were below budget due to primarily to changes in commodity prices, such as the price of oil and natural gas. The fund has been fully funded at $2.5 Billion, and fund surpluses have already been allocated to the Province s Capital Fund for spending in priority areas. The fund became the third quarter of the Province s fiscal year. A recent study by the Regional Infrastructure Working Group (RIWG), estimated that at $30 US per barrel, a failure by the Province to pre-invest in required critical infrastructure would results in a net present loss to the province of $1.6 Billion for a oneyear delay, and $2.0 Billion for a two year delay. The Sustainability Fund is an existing source of funds should be used to fund critical infrastructure projects that demonstrate that they have a higher net present value than keeping the funds for future use. Given that the infrastructure projects in the Fort McMurray region have a higher net present value than that of maintaining the Fund as in investment or insurance policy, these monies should be used to pre-invest in Alberta s future, helping to the Province to enable itself to further prosper from its existing natural resources. 1

3 Table of Contents Page 1...Executive Summary Page 2...Table of Contents Page 3...The Sustainability Fund A Background Page 4 An Infrastructure Deficit in the Oilsands Region Page 8....Discussion of the limitations of Net Present Value Analysis Page 10...Net Present Value Analysis Page 13...Political Ramifications of Spending the Sustainability Fund Page 14...Analysis and arguments for spending from the Sustainability Fund Page 16...Analysis and arguments against spending from the Sustainability Fund Page 18...Recommendation and Conclusion Page 20...References Works Cited 2

4 The Sustainability Fund A Background On February 23 rd, 2003, the Alberta Government introduced the goal of establishing a Sustainability Fund, a $2.5 Billion dollar fund that would be funded by provincial resource revenues. The goal of the fund was to provide financial stability to balance the volatility of non-renewable resource revenue. This was introduced through Bill 2, the Financial Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 2 also introduced a capital account to help address pressing infrastructure needs in Alberta 1. Contributions to the fund were to come from annual provincial non-renewable resource revenues in excess of $3.5 Billion dollars. Furthermore, any provincial surpluses that were unallocated at the end of each fiscal year would also be allocated to the Sustainability Fund. The fund became the third quarter of the Province s fiscal year. One of the key proposals that lead to the creation of the Sustainability Fund came from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta (ICAA). In a January 2002 set of recommendations to the province, the ICAA listed the creation of a Stability Fund as a key recommendation to help alleviate the effects of constantly changing energy prices, and therefore, energy royalties to the province. The ICAA s Stability Fund was to be set at $3.5 Billion dollars, and be funded out of the Alberta Heritage Savings and Trust Fund. The fund would also have annual surpluses allocated to it in order to set aside sufficient dollars to help offset future deficits. The recommendation was to use this fund to cover any budget deficits, mainly on account of fluctuating revenues, as opposed to being used to fund further spending. As such, this would create what was seen as a stable operating environment where the government would be less concerned with fluctuating resource 3

5 revenues. The recommendations from the ICAA were to also allow for one-time infrastructure spending when [the fund] grows beyond its start-up position adjusted for inflation and population growth 2. Whether or not governments should actually save instead of lowering taxes is another issue beyond the scope of this paper, but the point itself is valid; do we need two separate rainy day funds totaling more than $14.7 Billion? Just how many rainy day funds are required? The province has had the Alberta Heritage Savings and Trust Fund since its inception in As of December 2004, the fair value of the Alberta Heritage Savings and Trust Fund was approximately $12.2 Billion dollars 6. Investment earnings from this fund are transferred to the government s General Revenue Fund, and therefore are spent based on the annual budget process. This is similar to the Sustainability Fund where the annual surpluses from the Sustainability Fund can be moved to a Capital Fund to fund infrastructure projects as deemed appropriate by the government. As such, we have two separate rainy day funds to help in the event of economic downturns. Given this fact, we should be asking, whether Alberta s investment in the Sustainability Fund is a better course of action than spending those amounts aimed at further increasing natural resources royalties from Oilsands projects? An Infrastructure Deficit in the Oilsands Region Fort McMurray is currently facing a crisis in infrastructure. Its rapid growth over the past decade has come at the cost of being in a large infrastructure deficit as spending has not kept pace with growth. In a report to the Alberta government on the Oilsands prepared by Nichols Applied Management for Alberta Economic Development in 4

6 September 2004, they state the 2004 municipal census places the population of Fort McMurray at 56,111, up from 47,240 in 2002 and 34,000 in early The population of Fort McMurray is forecast to reach 60,000 in 2006 and may exceed 75, 000 by the end of this decade 11. The RMWB censuses indicated that the growth rate in recent years (2002, 2003) is 8.9 per cent per year, while the six-year average annual growth rate was 8 per cent. This is higher than any other Alberta municipality over the same six-year period 10. With this magnitude of population growth concentrated in a relatively remote area it poses additional growth pains, especially given the fact that the municipality s base population in early 1996 in a small base upon which to grow at large rate. To complicate the population grow, the single lane highway that is Fort McMurray s lifeline to the rest of the Province generally shocks visitors who travel to Fort McMurray for the first time by car. The highway is in poor condition, averages 6,000 vehicles per day, and has very few passing lanes. Although this single piece of infrastructure deficit is glaring, this is not even the most pressing infrastructure need of the community. The infrastructure needs for the Fort McMurray region have been addressed to the province numerous times in the last 5 years, including more recently by the RIWG. The RIWG has currently identified a total of $1.2 billion in capital infrastructure projects required in the 2005 to 2009 period, including 10 : $353 million in municipal projects, including water, waste water, road, and recreation facilities; $236 million in primary, secondary and post-secondary education facilities; $500 million in highway projects; and $136 million in health facilities and affordable housing. The RIWG also notes the following key issues and examples of infrastructure needs: 5

7 Key Issues 10 High and accelerating population growth requiring new residential, commercial, and institutional development. Critical population thresholds requiring infrastructure investment within 5 years in areas as water and transportation High cost of servicing due to topography, relative isolation, and tight labour market. Sewer system upgrade required to meet population growth. Differently located emergency services needed to accommodate new residential development taking place in both north and south ends of the city. Preparation of appropriate planning documents required, such as Area Structure Plans, to facilitate new residential, commercial, and institutional developments. Infrastructure from the 1970s has reached the end of its economic life. Limited ability for debt financing, municipality debt levels have been raised to 85% of allowable limits. Examples of Infrastructure Needs 10 Tertiary wastewater treatment plant ($94 million); Regional landfill site ($6.5 million) New RCMP facility ($29 million) MacDonald Island redevelopment ($31 million) Timberlea Athletic Park ($5.1 million) New road projects ($23.7 million) Road maintenance projects ($6.7 million) Water treatment projects in Conklin, Anzac and Fort Chipewyan ($9.6 million) Thickwood Park ($3.8 million) Multi use Recreation Facility in Thickwood / Timberlea ($31 million) South East Water Line to Anzac ($16.9 million) Infrastructure servicing to reach 80,000 population ($10 million) The cost of these projects is expected to grow in the future, should the investments not be made in a timely manner. This point has been brought forward to the government by the RIWG who found that the cost of the proposed tertiary water treatment plant increased from $67 million in 2002 to $94 million in 2005 primarily due to increased capacity design to meet new population projections, as well as delays in obtaining funding and commencing construction of the facilities 10. 6

8 So why is the timing of infrastructure funding and approval so important? Eddy Isaacs, Ph.D, in Canadian Oilsands: Development and Future Outlook, states 13 : The investment costs and time to bring typical oil sands projects into production is also a major risk. Typical mining, extraction and upgrading projects require about $3 billion U.S. investment to produce 100,000 barrels/day of high quality refinery ready synthetic crude oil. The operating cost is typically $10 U.S. per barrel. The time to bring mining projects into production is approximately six years, including engineering feasibility, regulatory approval, equipment purchases, construction and start up. In situ operations have the advantage that they can be designed to come on stream in modular fashion; however, the per barrel supply costs are similar to that of surface mined operations. Given the long lead-time required, infrastructure needs to be put in place to coincide with development. Furthermore, without required infrastructure improvements, there could be delays in the entire process, shifting the actual startup of new operations out further into the future, thus resulting in losses in royalties and corporate taxes due to deferral or entire loss of projects. Furthermore, the lost opportunity of capital spending by Oilsands developers is huge. Using a discounting schedule, the RIWG calculated the total adjusted capital expenditure profile of the industry for the 2004 to 2013 period is estimated at $35.7 billion. In addition the industry is expected to spend an additional $11.0 billion in sustaining capital and $1.1 billion on pipelines, co-generation and other associated projects 11. Thus, even if one project were to be put on hold or scuttled, there would be a large lost financial opportunity for the province in terms of foregone royalties, and to engineering, construction and manufacturing companies in terms of lost business opportunities as well. The critical items identified by the RIWG are not all inclusive of all of the items required to help the Oilsands and the municipality. There are a number of other items 7

9 which would likely have formed part of a wish list had the list of critical items not been so costly at $1.2 Billion. Big-ticket items such as a twinned highway from Edmonton to Fort McMurray, and an upgraded and expanded railway line are two other items that have been discussed in the media within the last year. There is no denying that both of these items would create transportation and cost efficiencies for all stakeholders in Fort McMurray, however the government has publicly stated that these would not proceed as capital projects - the assumption is that this stance is due to the enormous cost, irrespective of net financial benefits for stakeholders, or increased safety for all highway travelers. Discussion of the Limitations of Net Present Value Analysis There are a number of items that cannot be determined through quantitative or financial analysis. There are many qualitative items that cannot be included through net present value analysis. For example, if a new twinned highway were built, the potential to estimate the effect of efficiencies on transportation costs would be possible. However, the effect on driver satisfaction cannot be measured and input into the net present value analysis in a meaningful way. Furthermore, a twinned highway may potentially help reduce traffic fatalities, another effect which although significant, is somewhat meaningless in the context of net present value. As such, there are numerous items that are not included and may serve to distort which is the optimal solution. The optimal solution may be the one that is arrived at using only qualitative measures. In that case, the net present value analysis may help confirm that from a financial perspective, the option is optimal. However the opposite may be true if the analysis showed a negative return, yet qualitative measures show that that option is indeed optimal. 8

10 Secondary effects also pose a problem in net present value analysis, especially where they are not explicitly considered. One of these items is the potential impact that government spending on infrastructure has on property values due to increased infrastructure in the region, allowing for further expansion. For example, the municipality s tertiary water treatment plant is currently a limiting constraint to future Oilsands development given that the water treatment plant was originally constructed for a city of 50,000 people. That number has already been surpassed according to the Alberta Government s 2004 Official population list, which lists Fort McMurray at 56,111 persons 7. As such, infrastructure dollars spent to upgrade the water treatment plant would allow further development in the municipality, which would allow more lots to be developed and sold, potentially impacting property values for all residents, due to increased supply. Whether an increase in supply results in significant price changes is unknown; current trends may continue whereby demand continues to outpace supply. Another example of a secondary effect that has not been included in the analysis is the total effect Oilsands development capital spending has on the overall economy as opposed to just on royalties and corporate taxes. As an example, increased capital investment by industry spawns increased tax dollars through a number of means. First, provincial income taxes related to wages earned by the construction workforce result in an annual inflow of revenues. Secondly, assuming that all participating companies in the engineering, procurement and construction activities are operating at a profit, increased spending by Oilsands developers results in increased revenues and net profits for participating companies. Through current business taxes on the incremental net profits, the governments also achieve an enhanced revenue stream. These secondary effects have 9

11 not been included in the analysis, yet the value of these effects could be substantial, especially where projects already have large positive net present values. Furthermore, by only looking at the net present value of investments in infrastructure and analyzing the deferral or loss of royalties and corporate taxes from Oilsands projects to the government of not spending the necessary dollars, the potential rewards to forestry companies, local businesses, tourism, other stakeholders, etc, are omitted. These other stakeholders are likely to also benefit from increased efficiencies due to better infrastructure, yet these secondary effects have not been quantified in the analysis. Net Present Value Analysis In order to evaluate whether it would appear advantageous to keep the Sustainability Fund dollars as a cushion against downturns in energy revenues, or whether these dollars could be better spent developing infrastructure in the Oilsands region, we need to be able to quantify which of these options would have the highest overall benefit. In order to assess the option with the highest overall benefit, a quantitative metric must be developed so as to compare the two. As well, qualitative factors outside of the metric must also be discussed, as there may be some important factors that cannot be appropriately quantified. The RIWG presentation forecasted that a one-year delay in infrastructure improvements would result in a $1.6 Billion loss 4, based on their analysis over the next 10 years, using a discount rate of 6%, and $30 US per barrel (WTI). This loss is the result of timing delays in government revenues, such as corporate taxes and royalties. 10

12 Therefore, the net present value of keeping the money in the fund over the same ten year payback period needs to be calculated and compared to the $1.6 Billion loss. The calculated net present value of investing in the Fund at 6% over the same 10 years is $1.106 Billion. The same discount rate was used in both scenarios, thus not biasing the results in favor of one option over the other. It could be argued that there could be different discount rates used; however, ensuring consistency in this case is both rational. Given that the NPV of deferring work in terms of deferred or lost royalties and corporate taxes is $1.6 Billion per year, there is compelling reason to ensure that the work is progressed on time, especially given that it has a higher net present value than keeping the funds in an investment using the same discount rate. Should the government decide not to make further investments in the infrastructure requirements, we can see that there is a large financial consequence to that stance. The term investment can truly be seen as what is normally defined as an investment. The initial outlay of capital is expected to general economic returns as a result of that outlay. Therefore, instead of seeing these as normal capital projects, with potentially no payback, the government should reconsider its options and realize that the incremental dollars spent are expected to generate repayment, including a positive return on the investment. The RIWG illustrated their case for increased provincial spending on infrastructure through the following business case presented to the Provincial government 10 : Since 1996, oil sands developers have paid $6 billion in royalties and taxes to the Government of Alberta. Over the next 10 years, Government of Alberta revenues from oil sands related royalties and taxes are expected to total $14 billion, based on oil prices of $30 US per barrel (WTI). Alberta oil sands related revenues are expected to be $1.4 billion a year by 2010 and $4.2 billion a year by Thus, using the conservative estimates above, $1.2 billion of pre-investment in public 11

13 infrastructure would be repaid 10 times over, in the next 10 years. On the other hand, a failure by Government to pre-invest in the infrastructure required to support oil sands growth could result in increased oil sands project costs and/or delays to projects, which in turn would delay and/or reduce expected royalties and taxes from oil sands development. A two-year delay could result in a lost revenue opportunity of over $2 billion for Albertans. This is a compelling Business Case to support pre-investment in public infrastructure in the Wood Buffalo region, and should be of interest for ALL Albertans. The conclusion that they draw that this is a compelling business case is an entirely rational opinion if the lost opportunities are as large as forecast in their work. Even if they were off by 10 to 20 percent, there would still be a compelling business case. Furthermore, given that current oil prices are well above the $30 US per barrel WTI at over $58 US per barrel as of June 17 th, 2005, the business case is much stronger, as delays will cause even larger losses to the government. Given RIWG s analysis, a current investment in priority infrastructure is expected to potentially generate a tenfold return to the province in the form of increased royalties and corporate taxes. Delays in providing the infrastructure necessary are projected to cost the Province $1.6 Billion for a one year deferral, or $2.0 Billion for a two year deferral. Given these return assumptions, purely from a financial standpoint the Province should proceed with providing the capital funding necessary to support critical infrastructure projects in the Oilsands region. Given that the Province is bound by law not to run budget deficits, the source of these funds cannot come from the General Revenue Fund to the extent that these funds are already allocated within the annual Provincial Budget. As such, funding for these projects must come from government surpluses, or from government funds that can be used to offset the spending requirements by bringing dollars back into the General Revenue or Capital Funds, such that the spending from 12

14 these funds would be covered, and therefore a deficit within the fund would be bypassed. One of the funds that could be used is the Sustainability Fund, which was created from budget surpluses of non-renewal resources revenues, therefore was partially funded by Oilsands operators. Political Ramifications of Spending the Sustainability Fund One of the political ramifications to the use of the Sustainability Fund towards Oilsands Development is society s potential reaction to this use of funds. In the current climate where health care and education are seen as higher priorities that infrastructure or development, this use of funds could come at a large price to the government in power. The results of the Alberta Government s It s Your Future Survey conducted in 2004, and based on a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 was the highest priority showed that Albertans, on average, rated the highest priority for health care (8.85). The second highest score was for education (8.40) and the third highest score was for (the) environment (7.55) the fourth and fifth priority rankings (were) infrastructure and reduce taxes. 8. Thus, it is clear that more money going directly to infrastructure is not the average Albertan s priority. Furthermore, given that most citizens, especially those residing outside of Fort McMurray, will not see a direct personnel impact, there could be backlash to this idea. Even if this use of funds could be proven to enhance the province s future welfare through increased royalties and corporate taxes, many citizens either won t believe it, wouldn t understand why that would be the case, or may potentially think that the government is selling out to big business. 13

15 Even the name of the Sustainability Fund is a potential impediment to its potential use to fund growth activities in the province. Many citizens would probably see any depletion of the fund as harming the Province s future, given that this could be seen as reducing the Province s financial stability. As well, given that the environment ranked higher in the government s survey of priorities, there are ramifications to increased spending on infrastructure. There may be little opposition to the infrastructure itself given that spending would likely only improve current infrastructure and affect lands that were already touched by infrastructure. However, if the increased spending is seen as promoting Oilsands development itself, more environmental concerns may surface given that the Oilsands developers are large net emitters of CO2, SO2, and other gases. The impact on air quality, and their deforestation activities in preparation for mining activities could potentially be cause for concern for many Albertans, irrespective of any financial benefits by doing so. Analysis and arguments for spending from the Sustainability Fund The RMWB projects that limits on the level of debt it can take on (based on provincial regulations) will curtail its ability to finance the critical level of infrastructure needs. It projects a funding shortfall of $102 million 11 for the period 2004 through Clearly, the city cannot afford to fund all of the infrastructure requirements on its own, especially with the royalty revenue and a share of corporate income taxes all going to the Province. Thus, some of the money must come from Provincial or Federal sources. A preliminary argument in favor of the use of the Sustainability Fund relates to the fact that it is resource revenues that have made the province prosperous. Given that 14

16 the Province s prosperity is in large part from this non-renewable resource revenue, why wouldn t we spend incremental dollars in order to enable even greater non-renewable resource revenue in the future, so long as the incremental investments have a higher net present value than in their current use? The Sustainability Fund was created from nonrenewable resource revenues; therefore it makes intuitive sense that in order to help preserve, as well as increase future non-renewable resource revenue, this money should be put towards projects that demonstrate a higher overall net present value. Any project with a higher net present value means that for any dollar spent, there would be a positive return on that dollar spent compared to the alternate option. Thus, to grow the Sustainability Fund outside of more allocated budget surpluses to the fund, the best way to do so would be to invest in higher net present value projects than it presently earns. Given that the current rules of the Sustainability Fund allow transfers to the capital program, sponsoring infrastructure improvements is well within the guidelines of the Sustainability Fund whenever there is a surplus within the fund. Instead of waiting for surpluses though and risking losses of royalties, why wouldn t the Province look to jumpstart the process by using money from the Sustainability Fund? Using the government's own logic, they want to use the fund to help buffer against the effects of decreased energy revenues in the future. Given that the use of this fund would likely not be required for several years based on current economic forecasts, then what better way is there to buffer these effects than to have a bigger fund? All other things being equal, the fund would grow by at least the positive net different in net present values of the projects, therefore would help the government in the future. 15

17 Infrastructure betterments that increase efficiencies to Oilsands developers that result in cost savings will have a large impact on future royalties. That is, the lower the capital costs to the new projects, the more profitable it will be to the government. This is the case since the Province s royalty regime is based on recoveries of capital costs before higher royalties to the companies kick in. Thus, if the province is able to add infrastructure which would help companies contain current and future capital costs, then the case can be made that this too will help increase royalty levels. For instance, if highway improvements made it less expensive to transport the massive amounts of goods and construction materials from within the province, this would translate to reduced transportation costs as part of the overall capital costs of a project. Consequently, the payback period to the province would be brought forward. Analysis and arguments against spending from the Sustainability Fund Would the infrastructure spending occur anyway without any further assistance by the Province? It is possible that should the current capacity of the water treatment plant continue to pose a limiting constraint on development, and if the Province was unwilling to provide more than the normal assistance to the municipality, it is conceivable that the current Oilsands operators and future Oilsands developers could band together to help pay for the upgrades required to the plant. After all, if this were a limiting constraint, it would be in their best interest to help remove that constraint in order to allow further residential construction to occur, therefore helping to manage the increasing housing requirements of the community. 16

18 Another argument against further development in the region relates to environmental concerns. Environmentalists would argue that there is already too much damage to the environment caused by strip mine operations, too much water consumed through current oil production, and emissions are already too high and contributing to the greenhouse effect. Thus, they would argue, why should we be interested in any further development which comes at a steep price to the environment? The province has tried to address at least a portion of these concerns when they recently announced an Energy Innovation Strategy, which offers royalty offsets of up to $200 million over five years to pilot projects that use new, innovative technology to increase environmentally sound recoveries from existing reserves and encourage responsible, development of new oil and natural gas reserves 9. The Federal government is also trying to address some of these same concerns through its ratification of the Kyoto Accord. Although there will be environmental impacts to future expansion, this helps illustrate that there are other mechanisms in place to help overcome the environmental impacts. Impacts on the environment must also be dealt with qualitatively, and they do not form part of the net present value analysis. A third argument against use of the fund is that the fund would be depleted at a time when expectations are high, but was created to guard against downturns in the economy. Further spending during peak times in the economy will only exacerbate future downturns to the extent that the fund is no longer there in its entirety to buffer against shocks, and will not be able to help deliver a soft economic landing. However, although valid in its logic, this line of reasoning fails to consider the future trends in oil prices that 17

19 analysts are predicting, and pre-investment in infrastructure will likely not only benefit Alberta in the near term, but also in the long term. Recommendation and Conclusion Given the preceding analysis, the net present value of deferring Oilsands development due to a failure on the Province s behalf of pre-investing in infrastructure is estimated to be $1.6 Billion using $30 US per barrel for a one year delay, of $2.0 Billion for a two year delay. With oil prices well in excess of that amount, the actual loss would be substantially higher. This compares with using the Sustainability Fund as an investment whose returns over the next ten years are calculated to be $1.106 Billion using the same discount rate of 6%. Therefore, from the Province s perspective, pre-investing in critical infrastructure would generate a greater return than keeping the fund as a buffer against downturns in energy revenues and earning a rate of return of 6%. Quantitative mechanisms have shown the robust case for current funding and spending. There are also numerous qualitative items which will also come to fruition through better infrastructure including highway safety and quality of life effects for residents of Fort McMurray. Although infrastructure priorities are not the highest priorities for Albertans in general, there is a robust business case for funding infrastructure needs in order to preinvest in future Oilsands development, and allow for minimal disruptions to measured growth for current stakeholders in the Fort McMurray region. If the Province decides to go ahead with the infrastructure projects identified as being critical for Fort McMurray, they have a choice to make whether funding should 18

20 come from the Capital Fund through the annual budget process, or whether it should come from elsewhere. The Sustainability Fund already has more than the required funds to meet the current critical infrastructure needs, and given the fact that the fund has been created using revenues from non-renewable resources, the Province should look towards using this fund as an opportunity to ensure our future prosperity by investing in higher net present value projects such as the ones identified in this paper. Given that the infrastructure projects in the Fort McMurray region have a higher net present value than that of maintaining the Fund as an investment and insurance policy, these monies should be used to pre-invest in Alberta s future, helping to the Province to enable itself to further prosper from its existing natural resources. 19

21 References Works Cited 1. Alberta Government News Release, February 23, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta, ICAA website, Publications, Future Summit 2002 A Stable Plan for Managing the Province s Finances, 3. RIWG/Nichols Applied Management, Presentation to the Standing Policy Committee, April 4 th, 2005 (various) 4. RIWG/Nichols Applied Management, Presentation to the Standing Policy Committee, April 4 th, 2005 (various) 5. Government of Alberta, Finance Department Information Release, Alberta Savings Heritage Trust Fund, page Government of Alberta, Finance Department Information Release, Quarterly Report, Alberta Savings Heritage Trust Fund, February 28, Government of Alberta, Alberta Government Official Population List, page Government of Alberta, Its Your Future, page 7, 9. Government of Alberta, Department of Energy, Talk About Oilsands, Wood Buffalo Business Case 2005, A Business Case for Government Investment in the Wood Buffalo Region s Infrastructure, March 2005 (various) Nichols Applied Management, for Alberta Economic Development, September 2004, Oilsands Industry Update Murray Smith, Minister Counsellor, Keynote Speech, Raymond James Oilsands of Canada Conference, Topic: "Welcome to Alberta's oilsands " New York City, New York - May 9, Canadian Oil Sands: Development and Future Outlook,.Eddy Isaacs, Ph.D