Canadians Need To "Reel In" Big Oil: The Need For Law Reform

Posted on Sunday, May 27 at 12:22 by PatriotPete
Now let's analyze his previous paragraph. When it says that 40 %to 50% of the price at the pump is due to the crude oil costs under no circumstance ought you conclude that the crude oil costs are the same as the production costs incurred by the major companies. In fact the crude oil costs are not the production costs, rather, the crude oil cost is the wholesale price, the "posted commodity price per barrel of oil" set in places like New York, Seattle, Minneapolis. As we turn our attention to the matter of refineries and retail gas stations, it should not escape our attention that for the most part, the oil and gas business in Canada is a vertically integrated business, and the major players own the refineries as well as the retail outlets. So they're making profits all along that vertical pathway. Just just who are the major players in Canada, that is Big Oil? In no particular order as to the size of their business operations they are: Chevron Canada, Husky Energy, Imperial Oil, North Atlantic Refining, Petro Canada, Shell Canada, Suncor Energy and Ultramar. It is common knowledge that Imperial oil is owned by Exxon Mobile, and that Shell Canada has been, or is soon to be taken over by Royal Dutch Shell. Let's consider Big Oil's profits. As a starter when you're lining up at the fuel pump, reaching for your wallet or purse to pay that hefty bill, you might want to know that the combined 2005 profits for the big three oil companies with more than $63 billion. Furthermore the three major oil companies, Exxon Mobile, Chevron, and Conoco Phillips made $15.7 billion US during the first three months of 2006, and that is about 17% more for the same period in 2005. Just as you fork over more of your money to Big Oil, let's take a collective pause and be even more mindful. Petro Canada- Canada's fourth-largest producer and refiner reported earnings rose from 486 million during last year's first quarter to 580 million during the first quarter of 2007 - that is an increase of 94 million or 19.34%. Did you get a wager salary increase of 19.34% during the first quarter of 2007, likely not, that's part of the built-in inequity of the capitalistic system. Imperial Oil- first-quarter profits up 31% to $774 million. It is noteworthy that Imperial oil is 69% own by Exxon Mobile. Chevron -their profit in 2006 was $14.1 billion, a company record. During the first quarter of 2007 their profits are up 18% over 2006 to $4.7 billion US. Last year, 2006 first-quarter was pretty good too, then profits soared 49% to $4 billion US. Royal Dutch Shell, the owners of Shell Canada, their profits in 2006 were $25.44 billion. Husky energy's first-quarter profits in 2007 are up 24%. Now let's consider the potential profits made from the production of oil from the oilsands in Alberta. In case you didn't know there are three players in the oil sands project, Shell Canada/Royal Dutch Shell, Western Oil Sands, and Chevron. According to the OilSands Discovery Center in Alberta, it costs approximately $13.21 per barrel to process each of the 2.8 trillion barrels in the oilsands... a reserve eight times bigger than Saudi Arabia's... containing more oil than all OPEC nations combined. So if the OilSands Discovery Center's figures are correct, and it only cost $13.21 per barrel, and the world price for crude sells for $60 US plus - that is a $46.79US, more than 350% profit above the cost of production. Who pays for that profit margin- we, the Canadian consumer. But then the quest for even more profits isn't over, as they go on to take an additional 10% to 15% refiners margin, refineries all owned by Big Oil, and further profits from leases of their retail gas stations. But to be fair, we ought to discuss the topic of taxes. 30% to 40% of the price at the pump is composed of taxes. The federal government charges $.10 per litre excise tax on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel. Then there is a federal GST up 6%, and where provincial sales taxes exists there is an additional tax levy of 6% or 7%. If you live in the city of Vancouver or Victoria there is a municipal tax of six cents per litre, while in Montréal it is 2.5 cents per litre. On the average, looking across British Columbia, the tax proportion per litre of gasoline for the week ending May 15, 2007 was 31.3 cents per litre, except in Vancouver where it was 37.7 cents per litre, and Victoria where it was 34.1 cent per litre. Despite the public reporting of the profit levels of Big Oil I personally don't believe they're accurate - I think they are way under-reported, not even touching the issue of excessive rates of executive compensation and management consultation fees with parent companies, or deferred taxation, write-offs, subsidies, corporate welfare. There's no public transparency respecting their real costs of producing crude oil or operating the refineries, and consequently, the citizens of this country have little idea of the profit margins of Big Oil over and above their costs of production. It is a misconception to think that the profits of Big Oil are only due to the markups along that vertically integrated pathway, in part they're also a consequence of the volume of petroleum products sold, it is a consequence of their monopoly and vertical integration. I for one would like to see a federal Petroleum Products Utilities Commission established in Canada, where Big Oil would have to "show and tell" costs associated with production, reveal their profit margins along each step of their vertically integrated industry, and justify why the price at the pump ought to go up -especially in an era where government taxation rates are stable, and, where world prices are currently falling. As a consumer I am willing to concede the need of a reasonable annual profit margin but only in an era where there is price stablization at the pump established by a federal Petrolem Products Utilities Commission...similar to the BC Utilities Commission that regulates hydroelectric and natural gas increases in prices for BC consumers. Someone has got to hold them accountable, someone has to demand greater transparency of their accounting records, someone has to say enough, someone has to regulate and reel in that sector - we do it in other areas of the economy -why not the Petroleum sector? Why not -can anyone ought there in cyberland pose a rational reply to that reasonable question. In my view that someone to make those demands for governmetal regulatory intervention has got to be you-the collective voice of Canadian citizens demanding accountability and leadership. If we as Canadians seek to establish a more just and equitable society where the gaps between the rich and the poor are lessened, where there is greater equality between the provinces, where our collective carbon footprint is substantially lower, then it is imperative that we reconsider whether or not oil and gas resources ought to be owned by the Provinces or by the Federal government for the equal benefit of all Canadians. We need to consider imposing transparent regulatory pricing mechanisms in the Petroleum sector, we need to have a national debate so as to democratically create a National "green" and Kyoto compliant Energy Policy - a Policy that balances Big Oil and their large carbon footprint with the imperative to consider the issues of global warming, our carbon emissions and Kyoto. Surely this nation and future generations of Canadians deserve a Kyoto compliant (or better) national energy policy, surely we deserve national energy security - no less so then Mexicans and Americans currently do- but if continentalist market forces continue to prevail over Canada's national public interest it is certain that too high a proportion of Canada's energy reserves will be exploited not for the obstensible benefit of Canadian citizens and the preservation of our national and global Commons - but rather for the obstensible benefit of the corporate sector and the insatiable energy demands of the North American economy - an economy that is highly wasteful in terms of energy useage, an economy where the focus is much more on "guns" and not "butter", an economy for "greeds" and not "needs." There are choices Canadian need to make now.

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. by avatar Milton
    Mon May 28, 2007 12:28 pm
    Good post PatriotPete.

  2. Tue May 29, 2007 2:17 am
    Hi Folks,

    I forgot to add a few things:

    1, Alberta's Heritage Fund stood at $16.3 billion at the end of December
    2006

    2. The Petroleum Fund of Norway - another heritage "rainy day" fund - stood
    at $147 billion.

    Can ANYONE tell me why Alberta's Heritage Fund is not substantially larger??
    Where did the monies go?

    3. Ought there be a "surtax" on superprofits--I say, yes, you say???

    Over & out,

    Patriot Pete

  3. Tue May 29, 2007 7:32 am
    Re: "<i>Can ANYONE tell me why Alberta's Heritage Fund is not substantially larger??<br> Where did the monies go?</i>"<br><br> Does the following quote, found <a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html">here</a>, provide some insight to help partially answer your questions?<br><br> "36. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to<br><br> (a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians; (b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and (c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.<br><br> (2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.".

  4. Tue May 29, 2007 7:57 am
    Actually, I don't think it has to do with equalization payments as much as the <br />
    fact that we just don't collect a fair share from the corporate oil thirst!<br />
    <br />
    here's a gem:<br />
    <a href="http://www.ualberta.ca/~parkland/research/perspectives/">http://www.ualberta.ca/~parkland/research/perspectives/</a><br />
    Prosperity05OpEd.htm (ok the link ends here, I don't know why they always <br />
    break on me??)<br />
    <br />
    And this might help answer your question; apparently WE ARE part of the NEP, <br />
    but its the US NEP not Canada's! <br />
    <br />
    "In 2004, Pembina found that Alaska charged $11.60 per barrel oil royalty, <br />
    and Norway charged $14.10 per barrel. Alberta charged $4.30 per barrel.<br />
    <br />
    Between 1995 and 2002, Alaska captured almost 100 per cent of the <br />
    economic rent of the resource, and Norway captured almost 90 per cent. <br />
    Alberta captured just 50 per cent."<br />
    <a href="http://www.vueweekly.com/articles/default.aspx?i=4353">http://www.vueweekly.com/articles/default.aspx?i=4353</a><p>---<br>"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere

  5. Tue May 29, 2007 8:27 am
    "<i>Actually, I don't think it has to do with equalization payments as much as the fact that we just don't collect a fair share from the corporate oil thirst!</i>"<br><br> Do you know how much equalization payments are and have been?<br><br> Of the oil produced in Alaska, Norway, and Alberta between 1994 and 2002 and in 2004, do you know what percentage is light oil, heavy oil, and oil sands bitumen? Do you know the relative value of light oil, heavy oil, and oil sands bitumen? <br><br> Do you know the percentages of sulphur contained in oil produced in Alaska, Norway, and Alberta, and what these sulphur percentages do to the relative value of the oil?

  6. Tue May 29, 2007 9:38 am
    "<i>According to the OilSands Discovery Center in Alberta, it costs approximately $13.21 per barrel to process each of the 2.8 trillion barrels in the oilsands..."</i><br><br> According to this 2006 <a href="http://www.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=NTV&e=PDF&dn=105460">pdf document</a>, "175 billion barrels of oil sands is deemed recoverable with today’s economics and technology ...".<br><br> According to this 2006 <a href="http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/06-26-06_oil_sands.pdf">pdf document</a>, "In the short-run, substantially accelerated bitumen production is bidding up the price of inputs. NEB reports higher prices for inputs ranging from steel and cement to electricity and natural gas.(22) As a result, oil sands production costs have increased. NEB and EIA refer to costs of more than $30 per barrel; CERI’s expected forecast is based on $32 per barrel. However, this does not necessarily invalidate the $25 per barrel cost used by CERI and NEB in lower forecasts and cited by many other sources.(23) ....".

  7. Tue May 29, 2007 9:46 am
    I recall reading about the downward adjustment in oil royalties loosing the Gov probably around the difference Peter spoke of <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.andrewnikiforuk.com/Ralphs_World.pdf">http://www.andrewnikiforuk.com/Ralphs_World.pdf</a> <br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/Vol2_1/clancy.pdf">http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/Vol2_1/clancy.pdf</a><br />
    <p>---<br>"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities."<br />
    —Sir Josiah Stamp

  8. Tue May 29, 2007 12:28 pm
    "<i>Now let's consider the potential profits made from the production of oil from the oilsands in Alberta.</i>"<br><br> The existence of the "Province of Alberta" is claimed as a result of the "Alberta Act". The present draft of the "Alberta Act", as written in 1905, states: "Therefore <b>His Majesty</b>, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:- ...".<br><br> In 1905, Section 9 of the <i>British North America Act, 1867</i> stated: “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the <b>Queen</b>”.<br><br> In 1905, Section 17 of the <i>British North America Act, 1867</i> stated: “There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the <b>Queen</b>, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons”.<br><br> In 1905, Section 91 of the <i>British North America Act, 1867</i> stated: “It shall be lawful for the <b>Queen</b>, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...”.<br><br> Edward VII was not a Queen. Edward VII was not Canada's constitutional Queen regnant in 1905.<br><br> This calls into question the legality of the "Alberta Act".



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news