Connect with us

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

Crazy government spending

Published on

 

Here’s proof politicians are WASTING your money on unbelievably stupid things.

WARNING: some of these examples are for mature audiences (including the first one).

The federal government spent $8,800 on a sex toy show in Germany called “Whose jizz is this?”

It spent $12,500 so seniors in other countries could talk about their sex lives in front of live audiences.

The government spent $1,700 on a musical called “Lesbian Pirates!,” $7,500 to promote diversity, equity and inclusion at a music festival in Estonia, and $8,100 to organize DJ workshops in Turkey and Georgia for the LGBTQ community to “bring more diversity into the world of DJing.”

While Canadians wait forever to get a hip replacement, the government spent $7.2 million for a “gender-responsive systems approach to universal health care in the Philippines.”

The feds also spent $12.5 million on “vacant land” in West Africa, $10 million on a chancery in Ukraine and $41 million on properties in Afghanistan that were abandoned to the Taliban.

The bureaucracy cost taxpayers like you $40.2 billion when Justin Trudeau became prime minister. Now it costs you $69.5 billion. That’s a 73 per cent increase in less than a decade.

No matter who becomes the next prime minister, we need an army of taxpayers pushing back against bureaucrats, lobbyists and activists who want to waste more of your money. And it’s a good bet those bureaucrats will try to hide wasteful spending from politicians looking to cut the fat. It’s time to roll up your sleeves to fight back.

Are you ready to push the government to stop wasting your money and start cutting? You can join the army of taxpayers fighting back by signing the PETITION below.

Will you sign the PETITION against wasteful spending?

Note: In case the automatic link isn’t working on your device, here is the petition link: https://www.taxpayer.com/petitions/cut-spending

Thank you for fighting for taxpayers – you’re making a difference!

All the best,

Franco Terrazzano
Federal Director – Canadian Taxpayers Federation

P.S.: If you’re sick and tired of the government hiking your taxes and wasting your money then you can sign this petition: https://www.taxpayer.com/petitions/cut-spending

Continue Reading

Business

Hegseth welcomes DOGE to the Pentagon, says national debt a security issue

Published on

From The Center Square

By

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he plans to welcome President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency to the Pentagon.

Hegseth, who joined troops for morning physical training excercises on Tuesday, spoke to reporters as he was leaving the U.S. Africa Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, during his first official trip overseas.

Hegseth said he wants to see additional investment in the U.S. military but noted the consequences of growing U.S. debt.

“You always want more, but we live in fiscally constrained times where we need to be responsible with taxpayer dollars,” he said. “We’re $37 trillion in debt. That’s a national security liability as well.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks to reporters in Germany on February 11th, 2025

The U.S. Department of the Treasury reports the country holds about $36.2 trillion in debt, but the real figure is much larger. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that extending tax and spending projections to cover all current and future generations, the infinite horizon fiscal imbalance is $162.7 trillion, or 6.6% of the present value of all future GDP, according to a recent report. GDP, or gross domestic product, is a measure of economic output.

Hegseth also said he would welcome DOGE and its leader Elon Musk to review the Pentagon’s $849.8 billion budget.

“We’ve been talking with them, in partnership with them and as I said on social media, we welcome DOGE to the Pentagon,” Hegseth said. “There are waste, redundancies and headcounts and headquarters that need to be addressed. There’s just no doubt – look at a lot of the climate programs that have been pursued at the Department of Defense. Defense Department is not in the business of climate change, solving the global thermostat. We’re in the business of deterring and winning wars.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks to reporters about DOGE on February 11th, 2025

He also mentioned weapon system procurement as potentially ground for DOGE to investigate.

“There’s plenty of places where we want the keen eyes of DOGE, but we’ll do it in coordination,” he said. “We’re not going to do things that are to the detriment of American operational or tactical capabilities.”

Hegseth suggested there could be “billions” to cut from the Pentagon’s budget.

Shortly after Trump created DOGE, Musk turned his eye to the U.S. Department of Defense. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, has publicly said he agrees with Musk when in comes to the Pentagon’s budget.

“Elon Musk is right,” Sanders wrote on X. “The Pentagon, with a budget of $886 billion, just failed its 7th audit in a row. It’s lost track of billions.”

Musk wrote in a November op-ed that the military was on his list.

“The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit, suggesting that the agency’s leadership has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent,” the op-ed said.

The U.S. Department of Defense’s annual audit once again resulted in a disclaimer opinion. That means the federal government’s largest agency can’t fully explain its spending. The disclaimer this year was expected. And it’s expected again next year. The Pentagon previously said it will be able to accurately account for its spending by 2027.

Musk has gone even further in his criticism of military spending. He called the military’s most expensive ever project, the F-35 stealth fighter, “obsolete.”

In May 2024, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found the cost of the Pentagon’s most expensive weapon system was projected to increase by more than 40% despite plans to use the stealth fighter less, in part because of reliability issues.

The U.S. Department of Defense’s F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced and costly weapon system in the U.S. arsenal. It’s a joint, multinational program that includes the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, seven international partners and foreign military sales customers.

The Pentagon has about 630 F-35s. It has noted plans to buy about 1,800 more, and it intends to use them through 2088. DOD estimates the F-35 program will cost over $2 trillion to buy, operate, and sustain over its lifetime.

Continue Reading

Trending

X