Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Help us build a better Ontario September 14, 2017
    If you live in Ontario, you may have recently been selected to receive our 2017 grassroots poll on vital issues affecting the province. Your answers to these and other essential questions will help us decide what issues to focus on as we head towards the June 2018 election in Ontario. For decades, the CCPA has […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Does the Site C dam make economic sense for BC? August 31, 2017
    Today CCPC-BC senior economist Marc Lee submitted an analysis to the BC Utilities Commission in response to their consultation on the economics of the Site C dam. You can read it here. In short, the submission discussses how the economic case for Site C assumes that industrial demand for electricity—in particular for natural gas extraction […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Ontario's middle and working class families are losing ground August 15, 2017
    Ontario is becoming more polarized as middle and working class families see their share of the income pie shrinking while upper middle and rich families take home even more. New research from CCPA-Ontario Senior Economist Sheila Block reveals a staggering divide between two labour markets in the province: the top half of families continue to pile […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Join us in October for the CCPA-BC fundraising gala, featuring Senator Murray Sinclair August 14, 2017
    We are incredibly honoured to announce that Senator Murray Sinclair will address our 2017 Annual Gala as keynote speaker, on Thursday, October 19 in Vancouver. Tickets are now on sale. Will you join us? Senator Sinclair has served as chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), was the first Indigenous judge appointed in Manitoba, […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • How to make NAFTA sustainable, equitable July 19, 2017
    Global Affairs Canada is consulting Canadians on their priorities for, and concerns about, the planned renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In CCPA’s submission to this process, Scott Sinclair, Stuart Trew and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood point out how NAFTA has failed to live up to its promise with respect to job and productivity […]
    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