Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Government Subsidies and the Oil and Gas Industry

Published

8 minute read

The Audit

 

 David Clinton

A look at Strathcona Resources Ltd.

Does the Canadian government subsidize companies operating in our oil and gas sector? According to research by science and technology journalist Emily Chung, between $4.5 billion and $81 billion of public funds are spent each year for assistance to the industry. But Chung notes how ambiguous definitions (what exactly is a subsidy?) mean that those numbers come with serious caveats.

I thought I’d make this discussion a bit more manageable by focusing on just one industry player: Strathcona Resources Ltd.

Strathcona is big. They produce around 185,000 barrels of oil equivalent each day and the company is currently ranked 98th among publicly traded companies in Canada in terms of market cap ($5 billion) and 88th for operating margin (21.59%).

The Audit does this work in part because paid subscribers share the load. Why not join, too?

What Is a Subsidy?

In the context of their report on the fossil fuel industry, the Department of Finance Canada asserts that “subsidies” can include:

  • tax expenditures,
  • grants and contributions,
  • government loans or loan guarantees at favourable rates,
  • resources sold by government at below-market rates
  • research and development funding
  • government intervention in markets to lower prices

The report defines tax expenditures as:

A type of tax measure, such as a preferential tax rate, exemption, deduction, deferral, or credit, with which the government aims to achieve public policy objectives through the tax system.

In the specific context of Strathcona, I could find no evidence that they’d received any direct public funding or “bailouts”. The government did recently announce a billion dollar partnership with the Canada Growth Fund (CGF) to build carbon capture and sequestration infrastructure, but that’s clearly an investment and not a subsidy. CGF is a Canadian arm’s-length crown corporation whose investments are managed by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.

Strathcona’s 2023 Annual Report includes a reference to only one loan liability, but that had already been paid off and, in any case, wasn’t guaranteed by any level of government.

What Tax Benefits Does Strathcona Receive?

Many. The company’s annual report discusses its $6.1 billion “tax pool”. The pool is made up of deductions and credits that it can’t use this year, but that can be deferred for use in future years. Here’s how those break down:

The “Other Tax Deductions” item includes the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SRED) deduction. That represents amounts spent on SRED-eligible research that companies can deduct from their payable taxes.

What Grant Funding Does Strathcona Receive?

Open Government data reports that only two federal grants were awarded to Strathcona, both in 2023. The first, worth $3.2 million, came from Natural Resources Canada as part of their Energy Innovation Program. Its purpose was development of Lindbergh Semi-Closed Cycle Flue Gas Recirculation and Carbon Capture.

The second grant was worth $12.5 million. It involved Environment and Climate Change Canada looking for an Orion Organic Rankine Cycle Waste Heat Recovery and Power Generation Project.

What Benefits Do Governments Receive From Strathcona?

Government subsidies don’t exist in a vacuum. As a rule, it’s assumed that subsidies to the private sector work as an investment whose primary payback is in profitable economic activity. Governments can also enjoy direct benefits.

In 2023, for example, Strathcona paid more than $405 million in crown royalties to provincial governments. They also spent $2.4 billion as operating expenses that included labor, energy costs, transportation, processing, and facility maintenance. Most of that money was spent in Canada.

A very rough estimate would suggest that total annual personal income taxes generated by people employed by Strathcona would be somewhere around $14 million. Vendors might pay another $13 million in corporate taxes.

There are also indirect benefits. For instance, those with jobs around the oil patch are, obviously, not unemployed and receiving EI benefits.

We could also take into account the larger impact Strathcona has on the general economy. Think about the food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment spending done by the families of Strathcona (and their vendors’) employees. That money, too, performs important social and economic service.

So does Strathcona receive more from government subsidies than the money they feed back into government accounts? Well, the $405 million in crown royalties are likely annual payments, as are the $27 million paid as income taxes. That’s what governments get. On the other side of the balance sheet, there is the $6.1 billion in deferred taxes and $16 million in grants. Those will probably be amortized over multiple years.

But does the word “subsidy” really describe tax benefits in any useful way? After all, there’s no company in all Canada – my own company included – that doesn’t deduct legitimate business expenses. And each and every Canadian receives similar benefits whenever they file their T1. For illustration, a Canadian whose total income happened to match the national average ($55,600) pays around $5,600 less in taxes each year due to various deductions and credits – including the basic personal amount.

Does that mean we’re all receiving government subsidies? There’s nothing wrong with thinking about it that way, but it does kind of strip the word of any real meaning.

Now you could reasonably argue that $6 billion is an awful lot of deferred tax, especially for a company with a 22% operating margin. And you could look to the tax code’s complexity for answers as to how this could have happened. But that’s not a subsidy in any coherent sense.

Think the tax code should be reformed? The line forms right behind me. However, the problem with playing around with the tax code is that changes apply to everyone, not just Strathcona or some other preferred target. Successfully anticipating how that might play out in dark and unanticipated ways isn’t the kind of thing for which governments are famous.

The Audit does this work in part because paid subscribers share the load. Why not join, too?

Give a gift subscription

 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Trudeau leaves office with worst economic growth record in recent Canadian history

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

In the days following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, there has been much ink spilt about his legacy. One effusively positive review of Trudeau’s tenure claimed that his successors “will be hard-pressed to improve on his economic track record.”

But this claim is difficult to square with the historical record, which shows the economic story of the Trudeau years has been one of dismal growth. Indeed, when the growth performance of Canada’s economy is properly measured, Trudeau has the worst record of any prime minister in recent history.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic success. However, growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP—an indicator of living standards and incomes—remains an important and broad measure. In short, it measures how quickly the economy is growing while adjusting for inflation and population growth.

Back when he was first running for prime minister in 2015, Trudeau recognized the importance of long-term economic growth, often pointing to slow growth under his predecessor Stephen Harper. On the campaign trail, Trudeau blasted Harper for having the “worst record on economic growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.”

And growth during the Harper years was indeed slow. The Harper government endured the 2008/09 global financial crisis and subsequent weak recovery, particularly in Ontario. During Harper’s tenure as prime minister, per-person GDP growth was 0.5 per cent annually—which is lower than his predecessors Brian Mulroney (0.8 per cent) and Jean Chrétien (2.4 per cent).

So, growth was weak under Harper, but Trudeau misdiagnosed the causes. Shortly after taking office, Trudeau said looser fiscal policy—with more spending, borrowing and bigger deficits—would help spur growth in Canada (and indeed around the world).

Trudeau’s government acted on this premise, boosting spending and running deficits—but Trudeau’s approach did not move the needle on growth. In fact, things went from bad to worse. Annual per-person GDP growth under Trudeau (0.3 per cent) was even worse than under Harper.

The reasons for weak economic growth (under Harper and Trudeau) are complicated. But when it comes to performance, there’s no disputing that Trudeau’s record is worse than any long-serving prime minister in recent history. According to our recent study published by the Fraser Institute, which compared the growth performance of the five most recent long-serving prime ministers, annual per-person GDP growth was highest under Chrétien followed by Martin, Mulroney, Harper and Justin Trudeau.

Of course, some defenders will blame COVID for Trudeau’s poor economic growth record, but you can’t reasonably blame the steep but relatively short pandemic-related recession for nearly a decade of stagnation.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic performance, but per-person inflation-adjusted economic growth is an important and widely-used measure of economic success and prosperity. Despite any claims to the contrary, Justin Trudeau’s legacy on economic growth is—in historical terms—dismal. All Canadians should hope that his successor has more success and oversees faster growth in the years ahead.

Continue Reading

Business

Greenland Is A Strategic Goldmine

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By John Teichert

President-elect Donald Trump recently snapped the gaze of the national security establishment to an often-overlooked geographical feature — Greenland.

Trump’s comments have been enough to start a long-overdue conversation about the semi-autonomous territory owned by Denmark, a landmass that retired Admiral James Stavridis, who served as the Supreme Allied Commander for NATO, has called “a strategic goldmine for the United States.” Stavridis was speaking both literally and figuratively.

Trump has likely done something that many of the so-called national security experts have never considered: He has looked down on a globe from the top. The traditional U.S.-centric view does not tell the full story nor provide the proper perspective. A top-down glance unveils key observations that reveal the wisdom of focusing on a geographic feature that has been brushed aside for far too long. 

Greenland and the entire Arctic region are typically considered simply rugged and quaint. Yet, their significance must be properly elevated as a fundamental component of U.S. national security and economic interests. Trump has done just that.

A North-Pole-centered perspective reveals that Greenland is the largest geographical feature in the Arctic region. As a result, it holds oversized strategic significance in controlling land, sea, air, undersea and space domains for a substantial part of the planet. Proper utilization of the Greenland landmass creates opportunities for multi-faceted dominance of the entire region.

This same perspective reveals a massive trade route, given the right climatic conditions and ice-breaking capabilities. It provides a maritime shortcut between the East Coast and the West Coast of the United States, and similarly for trade between Europe and Asia.

The Houthis in Yemen have reminded the world of an important economic truth — the ability to shut down transit through a key trade route can have ripple effects on the global economy. Suffocating transit through the Red Sea has tripled the cost of shipping from Asia to the East Coast of the United States, enacting huge global inflationary pressures. These negative impacts would be dwarfed by a nation that could control and restrict transit through the Arctic Ocean.

The view from the North Pole also enlightens the viewer about the closer-than-expected proximity between Russia and North America. The protective buffer of the Atlantic Ocean does not tell the full story, and the distances between the United States and Canada and their Russian adversary are much shorter than would otherwise be understood.

Through this literal worldview, Greenland looms large in its significance. This is especially true when it is properly viewed as the primary barrier between Russia and the east coast of the United States. Such positioning provides the rationale for the United States Space Force’s posture on the island with its early warning radars and space control systems – situated to protect against strategic surprise.

Trump’s strong statements about proper economic and strategic utilization of Greenland have been informed by such strategic orientation. These statements are also a natural extension of his rightful insistence that European NATO members pay their fair share to meet collective defense requirements.

While the United States has a commendable 75-year history of supporting European and collective security, fair share also means that America’s European allies must support North American security. That starts with Greenland and continues with a robust strategic focus on the Arctic region.

None of this addresses the largely untapped and abundant natural resources in the Arctic region, from oil and natural gas to precious metals and rare earth minerals, which are desperately needed to sustain a thriving modern global economy. Calling it a goldmine is not hyperbole.

Not only have Trump’s comments gained our attention, but they have also captured the attention of Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede. Egede has eagerly proclaimed that his territory is poised to enhance its collaboration with the United States regarding natural resources and security efforts.

Thus, with just a few words informed by a properly oriented security perspective, Trump has already motivated and cultivated a collaboration that could strike gold for American interests.

United States Air Force Brigadier General John Teichert (ret) is a prolific author and leading expert on foreign affairs and military strategy. He served as commander of Joint Base Andrews and Edwards Air Force Base, was the U.S. senior defense official to Iraq, and recently retired as the assistant deputy undersecretary of the Air Force, international affairs. General Teichert maintains a robust schedule of media engagements, and his activities can best be followed at johnteichert.com and on LinkedIn. General Teichert can be reached at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Trending

X