Connect with us

Economy

Greater oil and gas export capacity will boost Canadian dollar – and productivity

Published

5 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

It may be overly optimistic to think that Canadian producers could reap CAD$10 in gross profit per GJ, let alone the full almost-$20 price differential.  However, even if it is just $5 per GJ, that generates $90 million per day, or almost $33 billion per year.

Canada’s productivity performance has been dismal, having not increased over the last nearly ten years. Economists calculate productivity as the value of output divided by hours worked to generate that output.  However, the numerator, being the value of the goods and services produced, has been either neglected, or, when it is actually addressed, is looked at from the perspective of new, ‘high tech’ products and services (information technology, artificial intelligence, or advanced equipment, materials and devices).  While all these industries are important, other sectors boost value, too.

Foremost among those sectors is energy – where Canada has outstanding competitive advantages, but still does not get full value for its output.  Canada’s oil exports now go entirely to the United States, mostly via pipelines from Alberta and Saskatchewan, with a small amount sent by ship from the Vancouver area to U.S. West Coast customers.   All Canadian natural gas exports go entirely to the U.S., which already has a surplus.

The situation severely harms Canadian producers’ bargaining power, which causes them to experience severe discounts on natural gas and oil (whether heavy oil sands, Western Canada Select, ‘bitumen’; or conventional crude oil).  Fortunately, the situation will change radically, either next year, or, possibly, later this year.

The reason: Canada LNG, the first of possibly several West Coast liquefied natural gas liquefaction export terminals, should soon commence shipments to foreign buyers (South Korean, Japanese utilities, and others in East Asia).  The export capacity of the Kitimat, BC, facility is 1.8 billion cubic feet daily, or 1.8 million Gigajoules, ‘GJ’.

Natural gas now sells for about $2.50/GJ Canadian in Alberta, whereas East Asian recent prices were US$16.70:  about CAD$22.25.  (It costs several dollars to liquify, load, transport and re-gasify at destination each GJ.)  Every dollar of after-cost price differential flows directly to producers, and Canada’s balance of payments.  The balance of payments determines our loonie’s value, and, thus, Canada’s standard of living (also, to some extent, inflation).

It may be overly optimistic to think that Canadian producers could reap CAD$10 in gross profit per GJ, let alone the full almost-$20 price differential.  However, even if it is just $5 per GJ, that generates $90 million per day, or almost $33 billion per year.  As total exports were $596.9 billion in 2022, this would constitute an increase of about 5.5%.  This amounts to roughly $1,610 per person in Canada’s current 20.5 million-strong labour force – a big productivity increase for ‘little’ extra work (as everything will have already been built).

Yet, that is not all.  There is also the TransMountain, ‘TMX’, pipeline expansion, scheduled for completion this year.   Its extra capacity of 590,000 barrels per day is all slated to be exported.  If ‘just’ $10 extra per barrel is garnered (the U.S. heavy oil differential exceeds that, typically), that would bring $5.9 million more per day:  $2.15 billion annually.

This would also contribute to a better balance of payments (perhaps becoming positive once more), a higher loonie, higher productivity, lower inflation, and a higher standard of living.  Australia, which now outperforms Canada, does not interfere with its own massive LNG exports.  If Canadian politicians can restrain themselves from blocking more oil or gas pipelines and LNG export terminals, a bright future awaits.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Watch Ian Madsen on Frontier Live on X here.

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

Automotive

Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.

First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.

Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.

And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.

Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.

Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.

So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.

If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Economy

The stars are aligning for a new pipeline to the West Coast

Published on

From Resource Works

By

Mark Carney says another pipeline is “highly likely”, and that welcome news.

While attending this year’s Calgary Stampede, Prime Minister Mark Carney made it official that a new pipeline to Canada’s West Coast is “highly likely.”

While far from a guarantee, it is still great news for Canada and our energy industry. After years of projects being put on hold or cancelled, things are coming together at the perfect time for truly nation-building enterprises.

Carney’s comments at Stampede have been preceded by a number of other promising signs.

At a June meeting between Carney and the premiers in Saskatoon, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith proposed a “grand bargain” that would include a privately funded pipeline capable of moving a million barrels of oil a day, along with significant green investments.

Carney agreed with Smith’s plan, saying that Canada needed to balance economic growth with environmental responsibility.

Business and political leaders have been mostly united in calling for the federal government to speed up the building of pipelines, for economic and strategic reasons. As we know, it is very difficult to find consensus in Canada, with British Columbia Premier David Eby still reluctant to commit to another pipeline on the coast of the province.

Alberta has been actively encouraging support from the private sector to fund a new pipeline that would fulfil the goals of the Northern Gateway project, a pipeline proposed in 2008 but snuffed out by a hail of regulations under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

We are in a new era, however, and we at Resource Works remarked that last month’s G7 meeting in Kananaskis could prove to be a pivotal moment in the history of Canadian energy. An Ipsos poll found that Canada was the most favoured nation for supplying oil in the G7, and our potential as an energy superpower has never been more important for the democratic world, given the instability caused by Russia and other autocratic energy powers.

Because of this shifting, uncertain global climate, Canadian oil and gas are more attractive than ever, and diversifying our exports beyond the United States has become a necessity in the wake of Donald Trump’s regime of tariffs on Canada and other friendly countries.

It has jolted Canadian political leaders into action, and the premiers are all on board with strengthening our economic independence and trade diversification, even if not all agree on what that should look like.

Two premiers who have found common ground are Danielle Smith and Ontario Premier Doug Ford. After meeting at Stampede, the pair signed two memorandums of understanding to collaborate on studying an energy corridor and other infrastructure to boost interprovincial trade. This included the possibility of an eastward-bound pipeline to Ontario ports for shipping abroad.

Ford explicitly said that “the days of relying on the United States 100 percent, those days are over.” That’s in line with Alberta’s push for new pipeline routes, especially to northwestern B.C., which are supported by Smith’s government.

On June 10, Resource Works founder and CEO Stewart Muir wrote that Canadian energy projects are a daunting endeavour, akin to a complicated jigsaw puzzle, but that getting discouraged by the complexity causes us to lose sight of the picture itself. He asserted that Canadians have to accept that messiness, not avoid it.

Prime Minister Carney has suggested he will make adjustments to existing regulations and controversial legislation like Bill C-69 and the emissions cap, all of which have slowed the development of new energy infrastructure.

This moment of alignment between Ottawa, the provinces, and other stakeholders cannot be wasted. The stars are aligning, and it will be a tragedy if we cannot take a great step into the future of our country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X