Economy
The Cost to Western Canada if Steven Guilbeault Copies Biden’s Assault on LNG
From EnergyNow.ca
By Jim Warren
” if all of the gas exported by Canada to the US from 2014 to 2021, the years encompassing the price depression, had instead been exported to Europe at average European prices, Canadian natural gas revenues would have been US $100.7 billion higher “
What would it cost western Canada’s natural gas producers if the federal government does to them what it did to tidewater export opportunities for petroleum?
This question became topical last week when the Biden Democrats announced they would block construction of new LNG export facilities in the US. It makes sense to get a handle on the size of revenues at stake if future development of LNG export capacity in Canada is similarly at risk. Indeed, it seems quite reasonable to worry that Steven Guilbeault will take inspiration from the Biden decision and try to do something similarly silly in Canada.
Getting pipelines to tidewater is something Canada’s petroleum industry has been counting on to improve export revenues. This was a particularly urgent hope during the eight-year oil price depression that lasted from Fall 2014 until early Winter 2022. It was, and still is, assumed exporting Canadian diluted bitumen (dilbit) into new non-US markets will allow producers to avoid the costly differential charges assessed by American buyers and refiners.
What if scenarios floated during the eight-year price slump showed that had the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain pipelines been completed, Canadian producers could have earned billions in additional revenues. Estimates of lost revenues ranged from a Fraser Institute estimate of $15.8 billion for 2018 alone to my own low-ball estimate for losses of $7 billion to $9 billion for that same year. Numerous back of the napkin “what if” calculations for lost revenues produced in coffee shops across the prairies helped fuel frustration and anger at federal government environmental policies intended to limit global warming by cancelling pipelines.
Fast forward to 2024 and we can see that similar conditions apply to western Canada’s natural gas sector. The US is virtually the sole export market for Canadian natural gas. Looking back at the period from 2010-2019 we find that the prices paid by US importers for Canadian natural gas were less than half what Europeans were paying. The price spread became exponentially wider beginning in 2016. It peaked in 2022 when the European price was six times higher than the US price. The European gas price will be five times higher than US prices for 2024.
All else being equal, if all of the gas exported by Canada to the US from 2014 to 2021, the years encompassing the price depression, had instead been exported to Europe at average European prices, Canadian natural gas revenues would have been US $100.7 billion higher than what they actually were.
Of course “all else” is far from being equal. The $100.7 billion figure does not account for the cost of converting natural gas to LNG or the added costs of ocean transportation. In addition, the estimate assumes enough Canadian pipelines and tidewater terminals could be built to accommodate all of the gas currently flowing to the US.
The yawning chasm between US and EU prices today is of course largely the result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022. EU sanctions aimed at Russian energy exports and the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines has put Europe firmly on track for developing new sources of natural gas.
Notwithstanding the bland platitudes and unreachable targets emanating from the most recent COP conference in the UAE, there are policy makers in many countries who recognize the important role natural gas can play in reducing global GHG emissions. For example, in December 2021 the European Commission made changes to its GHG emissions law. It now allows both nuclear energy and natural gas to be considered suitable transition fuels during the period while renewable options become more viable.
Lately, there has been a popular backlash in Europe and the UK over excessively zealous green transition initiatives. It turns out a lot of people are unwilling to accept additional increases to their cost of living even when told it is necessary to “save the planet.” People won’t stand for a prohibitively expensive green transition. And they never will be willing to freeze in the dark; especially when an acceptable option like natural gas is available.
Biden’s bizarre decision to block the expansion of US LNG export facilities was probably not motivated by a desperate desire or useful effort to curb GHG emissions. It is more likely a ham-handed attempt to staunch the Democrats’ loss of support among the young and the woke. Regardless of Biden’s motivation, we might reasonably worry that Canada’s environment minister will want to copy him. You might think the collapse in support for Canada’s Liberals and common sense would militate against the imposition of any additional half-baked environmental policy. But when has common sense ever intervened in the creation of environmentally virtuous policy on the part of the Liberals in Ottawa?
I have provided my data sources and relevant tables below
Hypothetical question: What if the exports to the US had been exported to Europe?
Source: derived by the author from the sources and data provided below
Natural gas prices for the US and Europe 2022 to 2024 in US$ per million British thermal units (BTUs) 2023 and 2024 figures are forecasts.*
Source: derived from Statist: Natual gas commodity prices in Europe and the United States from 1980 to 2022 with forecasts for 2023 and 2024.
https://www-statista-com.libproxy.uregina.ca/statistics/252791/natural-gas-prices/
Canadian natural gas exports in billion cubic metres (all to US)
Source: Statista. Natural gas exports by pipeline from Canada from 2010 to 2021 (in billion cubic metres).
https://www-statista-com.libproxy.uregina.ca/statistics/567703/natural-gas-exports-from-canada/
Natural gas prices for the US and Europe 2010 to 2024 in US$ per million British thermal units (BTUs) 2023 and 2024 figures are forecasts.*
Source: Statista: Natural gas commodity prices in Europe and the United States from 1980 to 2022 with forecasts for 2023 and 2024.
https://www-statista-com.libproxy.uregina.ca/statistics/252791/natural-gas-prices/
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.
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.
28 energy leaders call for eliminating ALL energy subsidies—even ones they benefit from
Carney’s Cap on Alberta Energy Costing Canada Billions
SPARC Caring Adult Nominations now open!
Manufacturers Endorse Pierre Poilievre for Prime Minister
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta Institute urging Premier Smith to follow Saskatchewan and drop Industrial Carbon Tax
-
Addictions1 day agoShould fentanyl dealers face manslaughter charges for fatal overdoses?
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoFool Me Once: The Cost of Carney–Trudeau Tax Games
-
Alberta1 day agoAlbertans have contributed $53.6 billion to the retirement of Canadians in other provinces
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoChinese Gangs Dominate Canada: Why Will Voters Give Liberals Another Term?
-
Automotive2 days agoTrump announces 25% tariff on foreign automobiles as reciprocal tariffs loom
-
Also Interesting21 hours agoThe bizarre story of Taro Tsujimoto
-
Energy1 day agoEnergy, climate, and economics — A smarter path for Canada