Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Report looks at captured nature of BC’s Oil and Gas Commission August 6, 2019
    From an early stage, BC’s Oil and Gas Commission bore the hallmarks of a captured regulator. The very industry that the Commission was formed to regulate had a significant hand in its creation and, too often, the interests of the industry it regulates take precedence over the public interest. This report looks at the evolution […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Correcting the Record July 26, 2019
    Earlier this week Kris Sims and Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation wrote an opinion piece that was published in the Calgary Sun, Edmonton Sun, Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa Sun and Toronto Sun. The opinion piece makes several false claims and connections regarding the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP), which we would like to correct. The […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Rental Wage in Canada July 18, 2019
    Our new report maps rental affordability in neighbourhoods across Canada by calculating the “rental wage,” which is the hourly wage needed to afford an average apartment without spending more than 30% of one’s earnings.  Across all of Canada, the average wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment is $22.40/h, or $20.20/h for an average one […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Towards Justice: Tackling Indigenous Child Poverty in Canada July 9, 2019
    CCPA senior economist David Macdonald co-authored a new report, Towards Justice: Tackling Indigenous Child Poverty in Canada­—released by Upstream Institute in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA)—tracks child poverty rates using Census 2006, the 2011 National Household Survey and Census 2016. The report is available for […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Fossil-Power Top 50 launched July 3, 2019
    What do Suncor, Encana, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Fraser Institute and 46 other companies and organizations have in common? They are among the entities that make up the most influential fossil fuel industry players in Canada. Today, the Corporate Mapping Project (CMP) is drawing attention to these powerful corporations and organizations with the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

PotashCorp’s Fuzzy Math

In a couple of recent posts, I threw down the gauntlet for PotashCorp to disclose how much corporate income tax and Crown royalties it paid to the Government of Saskatchewan.

As Bruce Johnstone reports, it has finally done so:

While PotashCorp paid $77 million in resource surcharges in 2010, it also paid $82 million in corporate income taxes and $70 million in Crown royalties. In total, PotashCorp paid about $230 million in royalties and taxes to the province in 2010.

So, I was correct in suggesting that it paid less corporate income tax to Saskatchewan than to Trinidad ($82 million versus $113 million). PotashCorp paid Trinidadian tax on a manufacturing facility, not for extracting the island’s natural resources.

That is the fundamental difference between corporate income taxes and resource royalties. All industries are subject to corporate tax. Royalties are separate fees for the extraction of publicly-owned natural resources.

It is inappropriate to add up PotashCorp’s puny corporate tax payment and puny royalty payments to produce a seemingly respectable total. It is appropriate to combine the resource surcharge with Crown royalties for total resource royalties of $147 million in 2010.

That year, the company sold $2.8 billion of Saskatchewan potash. (It sold $3 billion in total, but 8% of its potash production was from New Brunswick.)

The surcharge is set at 3% of potash sales and Crown royalties range from 2.1% to 4.5% of potash produced from Crown lands. The $147-million total amounts to 5% of $2.8 billion – a nickel for every dollar of potash sold.

PotashCorp’s fourth-quarter reports compare royalties to potash gross margin, upon which the Potash Production Tax (that it did not pay in 2010) is based. The company generated a gross margin of $1.6 billion from Saskatchewan potash in 2010 ($1.8 billion minus New Brunswick). So, it paid a whopping nine cents per dollar of potash gross margin.

PotashCorp is now trying to argue that the appropriate base of comparison is neither sales nor gross margin but earnings: “If you just take a look at our net earnings after tax, yes, it was $1.8 billion (in 2010),” [CFO Wayne] Brownlee said. “But from Saskatchewan, it was $1 billion.”

Of course, earnings are money left over after royalties have been paid, so they cannot be the base from which royalties are paid. Earnings are also net of corporate income tax and other charges that apply after royalty calculations.

But then Brownlee goes even further off the deep end:

Based on potash prices of $550 US per tonne and 14 million tonnes per year of production, PotashCorp projects it would pay about $1.75 billion annually to the province, including about $500 million in corporate income tax and about $750 million in potash production tax.

The story does not specify whether he means tonnes of KCl or K2O, but we have to assume KCl because that is PotashCorp’s usual metric. To put these projections in perspective, PotashCorp produced 7.4 million tonnes in Saskatchewan and received an average price of $316 per tonne in 2010.

So, if PotashCorp sells twice as much potash at nearly double the price, it will pay substantial royalties and taxes. I hope so.

I am by no means pessimistic about the potash industry’s future. But given that PotashCorp has kept prices high by limiting supply, projections based on doubling both prices and supply should be taken with a grain of salt (or some other salt-like mineral.)

PotashCorp’s disclosure of Saskatchewan-specific royalty and tax figures advances the debate. However, it does not change the conclusion that royalties are far too low.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Travis Fast
Time: March 12, 2011, 7:30 am

I bet you can guess what my hypothesis would be concerning the ability of Trinidad to extract higher royalties.

Comment from Erin Weir
Time: March 14, 2011, 4:46 am

PotashCorp does not pay royalties in Trinidad because it does not extract natural resources there. The distinction between resource royalties and corporate income tax is important. (However, I acknowledge that your favourite hypothesis applies to both.)

Comment from travis Fast
Time: March 14, 2011, 1:48 pm

Sorry I got too excited about the old saw.

As an aside: an old rusted saw, poorly maintained is not good for much except save perhaps as a curio.

Comment from Robert MacDermid
Time: March 15, 2011, 9:40 am

Inspired by your analysis of Saskatchewan potash royalties I have been looking at Ontario resource royalties in recent years and was surprised to see how paltry they have become. The 2010 Public Account of Ontario lists Crown stumpage royalties at about $17 million, mining royalties at about $2.6 million and aggregate royalties at about $1.4 million. By far the biggest royalty producer is water power at $137.7 million. Given the size of these industries, these are tiny payments and in the cases of the forestry and mining industries are no doubt surpassed by other assistance given to them.

Comment from Erin Weir
Time: March 22, 2011, 10:14 am

Thanks, Robert. I agree that Ontario collects far too little revenue from its rich resource base and it would be great to get some debate going in that province.

In addition to “royalties,” Ontario does levy a mining tax, which was slashed in half just as mineral prices took off. As page 1-1 of the Public Accounts shows, this tax generated $15.9 million in 2009-10 (after mineral prices collapsed and when Sudbury was on strike). But even in 2008-09, mining tax revenues were only $72.9 million.

Write a comment





Related articles