Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • CCPA welcomes Randy Robinson as new Ontario Director March 27, 2019
    The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is pleased to announce the appointment of Randy Robinson as the new Director of our Ontario Office.  Randy’s areas of expertise include public sector finance, the gendered rise of precarious work, neoliberalism, and labour rights. He has extensive experience in communications and research, and has been engaged in Ontario’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Budget hints at priorities for upcoming […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Boots Riley in Winnipeg May 11 February 22, 2019
    Founder of the political Hip-Hop group The Coup, Boots Riley is a musician, rapper, writer and activist, whose feature film directorial and screenwriting debut — 2018’s celebrated Sorry to Bother You — received the award for Best First Feature at the 2019 Independent Spirit Awards (amongst several other accolades and recognitions). "[A] reflection of the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA-BC welcomes Emira Mears as new Associate Director February 11, 2019
    This week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – BC Office is pleased to welcome Emira Mears to our staff team as our newly appointed Associate Director. Emira is an accomplished communications professional, digital strategist and entrepreneur. Through her former company Raised Eyebrow, she has had the opportunity to work with many organizations in the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study explores media coverage of pipeline controversies December 14, 2018
    Supporters of fossil fuel infrastructure projects position themselves as friends of working people, framing climate action as antithetical to the more immediately pressing need to protect oil and gas workers’ livelihoods. And as the latest report from the CCPA-BC and Corporate Mapping Project confirms, this framing has become dominant across the media landscape. Focusing on pipeline […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Debating Boyd on Resource Royalties

Saskatchewan’s Minister of Energy and Resources replied to my op-ed and letter on Dutch disease and resource royalties. On Friday, he was promoted to Minister of Everything.

Columnist Murray Mandryk wrote, “Given the amount of power Bill Boyd now has in his super-economy portfolio, he may be one fluffy Persian cat and remote desert island shy of becoming the political equivalent of a James Bond villain.” Does that make the target of his letters the political equivalent of James Bond?

Monday’s Regina Leader-Post featured the interprovincial man of mystery’s response:

Case for Royalty Hikes

Former energy and resources minister Bill Boyd’s regional rhetoric (“Backing a bad policy,” May 19) obscures the fact that the people of Saskatchewan, not eastern Canada, would gain the most from fairer resource royalties. The additional provincial revenue should be saved for future generations and invested in needed public services and infrastructure, which would create jobs in Saskatchewan.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reports that Saskatchewan received only $1.8 billion of royalties from $10.3 billion of oil sales in 2010. By comparison, Newfoundland and Labrador collected $2.2 billion of royalties from $8.3 billion of offshore oil sales.

Raising royalties would not “kill resource jobs.” Even if royalties doubled, the oil and gas industry would have made enough in Saskatchewan to immediately pay off its 2010 exploration, development and operational costs with a billion dollars left over.

Reducing these windfall profits would temper the foreign acquisitions of Canadian resource companies that drive up the loonie. A more competitive exchange rate would help Saskatchewan regain the 5,000 manufacturing jobs lost since the Sask. Party took office.

Boyd claims that ultra-low potash royalties helped it win last year’s provincial election. But the Sask. Party actually tried to avoid this issue by spewing out more press releases to distract from PotashCorp’s third-quarter profit report than on any other day of the election campaign.

If Boyd believes giving away the province’s non-renewable resources is good politics, he should welcome further discussion of royalties. I would be happy to debate him.

Erin Weir
Weir is a Saskatchewan expatriate and an economist with the United Steelworkers.

My interprovincial comparison focuses on oil because the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ Statistical Handbook (Table 4.24a) does not clearly distinguish between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland for offshore natural gas, propane and butane.

Furthermore, Saskatchewan’s natural gas royalties are negligible ($30 million in 2010-11), so royalty revenue (Tables 4.4b and 4.12a) can reasonably be compared to oil production alone.

My subsequent observation about how much the industry made in Saskatchewan includes all fossil fuels. Table 4.20a indicates combined sales of $11.1 billion (i.e. the $10.3 billion of oil plus $0.6 billion of natural gas and $0.2 billion of propane).

Table 4.4b indicates combined exploration, development and operational expenditures of $6.5 billion. So, even if Saskatchewan’s royalties doubled from $1.8 billion to $3.6 billion, the industry could still have immediately paid off all of its investments with a billion dollars left over (i.e. $11.1 billion – $6.5 billion – $3.6 billion = $1.0 billion).

UPDATE (June 1): Quoted in Planet S and Prairie Dog magazines

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Anon
Time: May 30, 2012, 11:49 am

Erin: You clearly slept through Capitalism 101.

The state exists for the sole purpose of collecting taxes from the citizens and then providing that wealth to people who are already wealthy.

A case in point is Dr. Oetker GmbH which has been given $19 million to build a frozen-pizza plant to supply the North American market with the company’s Ristorante and Casa de Mama products.

Government in this instance is “buying” 120 jobs at a cost of $158,000 each. See the following URL:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/29/terence-corcoran-make-global-pizzas-hold-the-subsidies/

Corcoran makes the point that Dr. Oetker GmbH also benefits from a pricing mechanism not available to other makers of pizza and their products are not subject to HST what gives them a further price advantage over the local fresh pizza shop. The upshot of this is that this state attempt to “create” jobs will likely cause the loss of an equal, or greater number, of local pizza shop jobs. And to make these state give aways possible we will need to cut EI and OAS payments to citizens who have no incomes.

Comment from John W. Warnock
Time: May 31, 2012, 8:44 am

One of the problems we have with advocating higher resource royalties for Saskatchewan is the fact that they were significantly cut by the Romanow and Calvert NDP governments. Indeed, Brad Wall often says (as he did during the potash debate) that the present royalties were set by the NDP governments and he saw no need to change them.

Write a comment





Related articles