Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • CCPA-BC joins community, First Nation, environmental groups in call for public inquiry into fracking November 5, 2017
    Today the CCPA's BC Office joined with 16 other community, First Nation and environmental organizations to call for a full public inquiry into fracking in Britsh Columbia. The call on the new BC government is to broaden a promise first made by the NDP during the lead-up to the spring provincial election, and comes on […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Income gap persists for racialized people, recent immigrants, Indigenous people in Canada October 27, 2017
    In the Toronto Star, CCPA-Ontario senior economist Sheila Block digs into the latest Census release to reveal the persistent income gap between racialized people, recent immigrants, Indigenous people, and the rest of Canada.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA in Europe for CETA speaking tour October 17, 2017
    On September 21, Canada and the European Union announced that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a controversial NAFTA-plus free trade deal initiated by the Harper government and signed by Prime Minister Trudeau in 2016, was now provisionally in force. In Europe, however, more than 20 countries have yet to officially ratify the deal, […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Twelve year study of an inner-city neighbourhood October 12, 2017
    What does twelve years of community organizing look like for a North End Winnipeg neighbourhood?  Jessica Leigh survey's those years with the Dufferin community from a community development lens.  Read full report.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Losing your ID - even harder to recover when you have limited resources! October 10, 2017
    Ellen Smirl researched the barriers experienced by low-income Manitobans when faced with trying to replace lost, stolen, or never aquired idenfication forms. Read full report here.  
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Taking Over Nexen

The China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s (CNOOC) bid to acquire Nexen is a large and complex proposal. Canadians should call for a more thorough and transparent review than other foreign takeovers have received under the Investment Canada Act. A preliminary outline of possible costs and benefits follows.

The Downside: Chinese Consumer Interests

A company like Nexen aims to sell oil and gas for the highest possible prices to maximize profits. The risk is that CNOOC, which is owned by the government of a large energy consumer, also has an interest in supplying these resources to the Chinese economy at lower prices.

There is nothing nefarious about a publicly-owned enterprise striking a balance between profits and consumer interests. Canadian provincial electric utilities do the same thing by selling power to their home consumers below market prices.

However, Canada’s predominant interest in the oil and gas industry is as a producer. Lower export prices would subtract from our trade balance, resource royalties and tax revenue.

Of course, if CNOOC started shipping conventional oil from Canada to China for less than the world price, that might be relatively easy to detect and remedy. But there is no established “market price” for trans-Pacific shipments of bitumen or liquified natural gas. By acquiring Nexen, CNOOC may gain leverage to influence those prices downward.

My 2005 paper, “Crouching Beaver, Hidden Dragon: Policy Implications of Chinese Investment in Canadian Resource Companies,” explored these issues in greater detail.

The Upside: Head Office and Investment

The promised benefits for Canada are CNOOC making Calgary its North American headquarters and investing more in Canadian resource development. However, CNOOC’s chief executive has said that “the company is not planning to increase the number of employees in Calgary” and “will only commit to maintaining Nexen’s current capital expenditure plan.”

That is apparently good enough for the Alberta government, which is publicly applauding the deal. However, it’s worth noting the uneven distribution of costs and benefits across provinces. Alberta is the potential beneficiary of having CNOOC’s North American operations headquartered in Calgary.

But as I point out in today’s Globe and Mail, Nexen extracts a substantial portion of its Canadian natural gas from Saskatchewan. It is also expanding shale-gas extraction in BC. Neither Saskatchewan nor BC would benefit from a possibly larger head office in Calgary, but both would be exposed to the risk of CNOOC underpricing their resources. Saskatchewan’s government has been conspicuously silent on the proposed takeover.

Letter to the Editor (Page A10):

Your editorial (Nexen Takeover Must Be Good For Canada – July 24) states that the resources “belong to the Crown in the right of Alberta.” In fact, the company has as many wells in Saskatchewan as Alberta.

In particular, Nexen acquired the former SaskOil after this Crown corporation was privatized. The resources still belong to the people of Saskatchewan, but ownership of the production assets has drifted from the provincial government to a foreign government – perhaps not what the apostles of “privatization” intended.

Erin Weir, Economist, United Steelworkers

UPDATE (July 26): Interviewed in today’s Regina Leader-Post (page D1) and Saskatoon StarPhoenix (page C5).

UPDATE (July 27): Appeared on last night’s Lang & O’Leary Exchange.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Chris P.
Time: July 28, 2012, 10:10 am

This possible takeover is likely one of the negative consequences of low royalties on oil and gas production. Would not higher royalties act as some kind of disincentive for takeovers of any kind, at least for companies that aren’t big enough to achieve economies of scope and/or scale with respect to production?

Allowing this takeover would allow Canada to use China as a counterweight against the US. However, what are the concrete benefits to Canada if any? A definition of the national interest should start with the need to: (1) maximize income for Canada (royalties, taxes, profits for Canadian-owned companies); (2) maximize long-term employment gains for Canada (full-time well-paid jobs);
and (3) maximize technological advantage for Canada.

I don’t see (as yet) any evidence for (1) and (3). How can we (if at all) ensure (2)?

Write a comment





Related articles