Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Royalty review just good business [Canadian journalist: "The Americans are frothing at the mouth."]
The National Post (Canada) ^ | 22SEP07 | Diane Francis

Posted on 09/24/2007 1:43:58 PM PDT by familyop

The Americans are frothing at the mouth. So are oil company CEOs, but Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach was absolutely correct in commissioning a report to examine oil royalties in Alberta.

The report, made public this week, recommends increasing overall royalties by 20%, equivalent to $2-billion based on 2006 revenues.

It's important to note that what is being discussed is not taxation but the royalty paid to Albertans who own the lion's share of subsurface mineral rights in the province. And they are not getting as much revenue from their resources as competing jurisdictions are, according to the report. Industry spokesmen dispute the numbers and say Alberta's take is already high enough, and any higher will drive away investment.

"We will make sure we get it right," said the Premier in a luncheon address at the Global Business Forum in Banff attended by CEOs and others.

That's, quite frankly, his job to juggle public and private interests for mutual benefit, which is why the most critical figures in this report are comparisons.

For instance, conventional oil and gas royalties and taxes in the U.S. average 67% while they are 50% in Alberta, said the report.

Non-conventional oil production -- offshore and heavy oil -- is another interesting story. Heavy oil royalties in Cold Lake are 60% compared with Nor-way's offshore royalties of 76%, California's heavy-oil royalties (and taxes) of 67.5% and Venezuela's 72%.

If these figures are substantiated then the argument for higher royalties is compelling. If not, then the recommendations should be placed in a dust-bin.

There are also those industry sources who say that even if Alberta's numbers lag and royalties go up, activity will fall, which will hurt Albertans. They point out that there are already idle rigs in the province, mostly due to low natural gas prices and high costs driven by the oilsands boom.

The boom has imposed a "tax" on most Albertans and they're not happy about it. Housing costs have leaped along with rents, labour rates, labour shortages and there are crowded schools, hospitals and roads. It's Albertans, who own the oil, whose tax dollars are financing the enhancement of provincial infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the review comes on the heels of Ottawa's income trust debacle and has led many, including American investment guru Dennis Gartman, to conclude that Canadian governments are revenue-grabbers without reason. He said he's exiting Canada.Many American investors followed his advice and hammered stocks. One analyst called the province "Albertastan".

To me, both the markets and media have been hysterical about nothing. Stelmach is not some fiscal confiscator. He's the CEO of the most valuable jurisdiction in the Western hemisphere and his review of royalties is simply prudent business practice.

As for the trigger-happy Mr. Gartner, I say good riddance and good luck. Where will he and his investing flock find another oil Promised Land? California? Norway? Venezuela? Or perhaps Putin's Russia?

dfrancis@nationalpost.com


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alberta; energy; oil; oilsands; royalties; sands
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last
To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
How does a 20% increase in royalties differ than a tax on oil that equals the same amount? The money goes to the same people, the government.

Royalties are a cost of doing business, so are taxes.

I'm not saying that Canadians don't deserve to be paid for their oil. However, increasing the percentage of existing royalties is exactly the same as taxing oil production in this instance, and has exactly the same effect.

When the government decides to increase the revenues they receive from business, that is usually called increasing taxes. However, in this case, since their is an existing royalty they can just increase it and say that they didn't raise taxes even though the effect is exactly the same.

In this case, it's just arguing semantics. In either case the government is talking abut taking a larger chunk of revenues.

21 posted on 09/24/2007 7:10:42 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
I agree with you about the existing royalties. In my first post, I said that existing deals with active leaseholders on royalties should be honoured. I'm not defending the royalty changes in this case.

More generally, when businesses know the royalty rates going in, they chose to pay the royalties. They don’t get any choice regarding taxes.

Royalties are payment for the exchange of property rights. Royalties on resources are no different than royalties for intellectual property — e.g. payments to musicians for CDs, actors for DVDs.

In Canada, there’s also an important technical difference between a provincial “tax” and a “royalty”. (Or so I've read -- I'm no tax expert.) Companies can deduct royalty payments from their income for federal tax purposes — but, not provincial taxes. If Alberta’s oil royalty rates are increased by about $2 billion, then the federal government would collect several hundred million less tax dollars. The reduced taxes would partially offset the cost of the increased royalty for businesses. Needless to say, the federal government wouldn't like this to happen.

22 posted on 09/25/2007 11:35:31 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
In Canada, there’s also an important technical difference between a provincial “tax” and a “royalty”. (Or so I've read -- I'm no tax expert.) Companies can deduct royalty payments from their income for federal tax purposes — but, not provincial taxes.

That is an interesting spin on things I wasn't aware of.

23 posted on 09/25/2007 12:20:37 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson