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

Business

Americans rallying behind Trump’s tariffs

Published on

The Trump administration’s new tariffs are working:

The European Union will delay tariffs on U.S. exports into the trading bloc in response to the imposition of tariffs on European aluminum and steal, a measure announced in February by the White House as a part of an overhaul of the U.S. trade policies.

Instead of taking effect March 12, these tariffs will not apply until “mid-April”, according to a European official interviewed by The Hill.

This is not the first time the EU has responded this way to U.S. tariff measures. It happened already last time Trump was in office. One of the reasons why Brussels is so accommodative is that the European Parliament emphasized negotiations already back in February. Furthermore, as Forbes notes,

The U.S. economy is the largest in the world, and many countries rely on American consumers to buy their goods. By import tariffs, the U.S. can pressure trading partners into more favorable deals and protect domestic industries from unfair competition.

More on unfair competition in a moment. First, it is important to note that Trump did not start this trade skirmish. Please note what IndustryWeek reported back in 2018:

Trump points to U.S. auto exports to Europe, saying they are taxed at a higher rate than European exports to the United States. Here, facts do offer Trump some support: U.S. autos face duties of 10% while European cars are subject to dugies of only 2.5% in the United States.

They also noted some nuances, e.g., that the United States applies a higher tariff on light trucks, presumably to defend the most profitable vehicles rolling out of U.S. based manufacturing plants. Nevertheless, the story that most media outlets do not tell is that Europe has a history of putting tariffs on U.S. exports to a greater extent than tariffs are applied in the opposite direction.

Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Facts notwithstanding, this trade war has caught media attention and is reaching ridiculous proportions. According to CNBC,

Auto stocks are digesting President Donald Trump’s annoncement that he would place 25% tariffs on “all cars that are not made in the United Sates,” as well as certain automobile parts. … Shares of the “Detroit Three” all fell.

They also explain that GM took a particularly hard beating, and that Ferrari is going to use the tariffs as a reason to raise prices by ten percent. This sounds dramatic, but keep in mind that stocks fly up and down with impressive amplitude; what was lost yesterday can come back with a bonus tomorrow. As for Ferrari, a ten-percent price hike is basically meaningless since these cars are often sold in highly customized, individual negotiations before they are even produced.

Despite the media hype, these tariffs will not last the year. One reason is the retaliatory nature in President Trump’s tariffs, which—again—has already caught the attention of the Europeans and brought them to the negotiation table. We can debate whether or not his tactics are the best in order to create more fair trade terms between the United States and our trading partners, but there is no question that Trump’s methods have caught the attention of the powers that be (which include Mexico and Canada).

There is another reason why I do not see this tariffs tit-for-tat continuing for much longer. The European economy is in bad shape, especially compared to the U.S. economy. With European corporations already signaling increased direct investment in the U.S. economy, Europe is holding the short end of this stick.

But the bad news for the Europeans does not stop there. They are at an intrinsic disadvantage going into a tariffs-based trade war. The EU has a “tariff” of sorts that we do not have, namely the value-added tax, VAT. Shiphub.co has a succinct summary of how the VAT affects trade:

When importing (into the European Union), VAT should be taken into account. … VAT is calculated based on the customs value (the good’s value and transport costs … ) plus the due duty amount.

The term “duty” here, of course, refers to trade tariffs. This means that when tariffs go up, the VAT surcharge goes up as well. Aside from creating a tax-on-tax problem, this also means that the inflationary effect from U.S. imports is significantly stronger than it is on EU imports to the United States—even when tariffs are equal.

If the U.S. government wanted to, they could include the tax-on-tax effect of the VAT when assessing the effective EU tariffs on imports from the United States. This would quickly expand the tit-for-tat tariff war, with Europe at an escalating disadvantage.

For these reasons, I do not see how this “trade war” will continue beyond the summer, but even that is a pessimistic outlook.

Before I close this tariff topic and declare it a weekend, let me also mention that the use of tariffs in trade war is neither a new nor an unusual tactic. Check out this little brochure from the Directorate-General for Trade under the European Commission’:

Trade defence instruments, such as anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties, are ways of protecting European production against international trade distortions.

What they refer to as “defence instruments” are primarily tariffs on imports. In a separate report the Directorate lists no fewer than 63 trade-war cases where the EU imposes tariffs to punish a country for unfair trade tactics.

Trade what, and what countries, you wonder? Sweet corn from Thailand, fused alumina from China, biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, malleable tube fittings from China and Thailand, epoxy resins from China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand… and lots and lots of tableware from China.

Like most people, I would prefer a world without taxes and tariffs, and the closer we can get to zero on either of those, the better. But until we get there, we should take a deep breath in the face of the media hype and trust our president on this one.

Larson’s Political Economy is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump Reportedly Shuts Off Flow Of Taxpayer Dollars Into World Trade Organization

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Thomas English

The Trump administration has reportedly suspended financial contributions to the World Trade Organization (WTO) as of Thursday.

The decision comes as part of a broader shift by President Donald Trump to distance the U.S. from international institutions perceived to undermine American sovereignty or misallocate taxpayer dollars. U.S. funding for both 2024 and 2025 has been halted, amounting to roughly 11% of the WTO’s annual operating budget, with the organization’s total 2024 budget amounting to roughly $232 million, according to Reuters.

“Why is it that China, for decades, and with a population much bigger than ours, is paying a tiny fraction of [dollars] to The World Health Organization, The United Nations and, worst of all, The World Trade Organization, where they are considered a so-called ‘developing country’ and are therefore given massive advantages over The United States, and everyone else?” Trump wrote in May 2020.

The president has long criticized the WTO for what he sees as judicial overreach and systemic bias against the U.S. in trade disputes. Trump previously paralyzed the organization’s top appeals body in 2019 by blocking judicial appointments, rendering the WTO’s core dispute resolution mechanism largely inoperative.

But a major sticking point continues to be China’s continued classification as a “developing country” at the WTO — a designation that entitles Beijing to a host of special trade and financial privileges. Despite being the world’s second-largest economy, China receives extended compliance timelines, reduced dues and billions in World Bank loans usually reserved for poorer nations.

The Wilson Center, an international affairs-oriented think tank, previously slammed the status as an outdated loophole benefitting an economic superpower at the expense of developed democracies. The Trump administration echoed this criticism behind closed doors during WTO budget meetings in early March, according to Reuters.

The U.S. is reportedly not withdrawing from the WTO outright, but the funding freeze is likely to trigger diplomatic and economic groaning. WTO rules allow for punitive measures against non-paying member states, though the body’s weakened legal apparatus may limit enforcement capacity.

Trump has already withdrawn from the World Health Organization, slashed funds to the United Nations and signaled a potential exit from other global bodies he deems “unfair” to U.S. interests.

Continue Reading

Trending

X