The USA Has Rapidly Become The World’s Biggest Exporter Of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
Oh GOD, this lie of financial support is hilarious. VERY VERY few have actually looked at the details of these studies.Canada spent $15 billion subsidizing oil and gas last year.
.
Canada spent over $15B on financial support for oil & gas industry this year: report
The non-profit group Environmental Defence says Canada "continues to fuel climate disaster" by providing billions to oil and gas companies.ca.sports.yahoo.com
Spend that much on renewables a year and we'd be laughing and not paying through the nose for climate change.
First, we'll do your post. I actually went TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE (critical thinking 101 right?) and I quote;
"This includes $3.28 billion in direct subsidy programs and $13.47 billion in public financing funneled to oil and gas companies primarily through a non-transparent crown corporation, Export Development Canada"
So. Environmental Defense considers $13.47B in loans that are paid back a subsidy. Wow. This is absolutely really magical thinking.
But hey, what about the $3.28B in direct subsidies?
Let’s do the economic approach of an example of another well known study. Let me give you an example from “Unpacking Canada’s Fossil Fuel Subsidies” by the International Institute for Sustainable Development” whose purpose is to discourage new subsidies for fossil fuel companies.
https://www.iisd.org/articles/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies-faq
This list of subsides they list is as follows.
Subsidy name Who Gets it How much is it worth?
LNG Canada investment Canada LNG Canada $275M
Direct spending & budgetary transfers Canada Oil and gas companies $318M
Crown royalty reductions Alberta Oil and gas companies $1.162B
Tax exemptions for certain fuels & uses in industry $298M
Royalty reductions British Columba $631M
Reduced tax for aviation fuel Ontario Aviation Industry $292M
Tax exemption for coloured fuels used in agriculture Agricultural industry $248M
Fuel tax exemptions and reductions Quebec Industry $301M
For a grand total of $3,525M in annual Oil & Gas subsidies. This is pretty close to EDs $3.28B. Sounds bad! If I merely was a cheerleader, I would run with this number like many do. But, we’re critical thinkers here right?
Let’s take a look at this knapsack a little bit.
First, the easy ones.
I’m bored, let’s say the LNG Canada subsidy of $275M is a subsidy. One time charge, don’t care.
The $292M is an Aviation subsidy and is very common throughout the world. Aviation is not a Fossil Fuel company. The Tax exemption for coloured fuels used in agriculture of $248M is an agriculture subsidy – Farmers Feed Cities right? Agriculture is not a Fossil Fuel company. The same with the “Fuel Tax exemptions and reductions” in Quebec of $301M. These are all other various industry subsidies and are not Fossil Fuel companies.
So, right now, $841M of the “Fossil Fuel Company” subsidies are not for Fossil Fuel Companies. They would receive these subsidies anyway and fuel usage is the best way way to track it.
The Direct spending & budgetary transfers of $318M is for R&D spending that is available to any industry in Canada if they apply. This is not specific to the Fossil Fuel industry. This R&D supports geothermal energy mapping, new sensors, reducing GHG emissions, Carbon Capture and storage and supports a wide variety of engineering and science developments. The equivalent may be DARPA. That is, basic research. By the way, the Renewable & Clean Energy Industry in Canada received $353M - so even more $ - under this same program in 2018 so it’s not industry-specific. Thus, this $318M of “Fossil Fuel Industry” subsidy was for basic R&D and was also available to any and all industries. Not discriminatory funding so therefore, not a “Fossil Fuel company” subsidy.
For summary, so far $ 1,159 of “subsides” is not related to the O&G industry and is not industry specific but basic research. I don''t think your opinion is really holding up but let's continue.
Next, the last two of $631M and $1,162M.
The $631M is not definable but is merely a budget line item. Who knows the context right?
Let’s take the big one, $1,162M as this is key to my original post. Unpacking this particular knapsack, I come across the Subsidy Cheerleader's key phrase;
“ That means the biggest oil sands companies paid a royalty rate of just 23.37 per cent, compared to 85 per cent in Saudi Arabia, 78 per cent in Norway, 63.5 per cent in China and 58 per cent in Australia. “
Their biggest line subsidy line item is based on the argument that; “it's a subsidy because it’s a missed opportunity in that they COULD have been charged” more tax! This is likely saying Biden subsidies US taxpayers because the average tax rate in the US is 24% versus Germany’s 39.3% as if it’s merely a choice.
Not a cogent comparison.
Canada does not compete for capital with Saudi, Norway, China or Australia and thus these country’s tax rates are irrelevant. It competes with the United States. In the United States, the royalty rate ranges from 12.5% (Texas) to 25% (can’t remember). The Canadian taxation rate cannot significantly deviate from its nearest capital competitor. This is basic competitive economics as I assume you know.
For summary, so far $ 2,321 of “subsides” is not related to the O&G industry, is not industry specific but basic research, and is an irrelevant comparison. This leaves $1.2B in subsidies in an industry that has a HUGE positive impact to our economy.
This argument of 'subsidies' is laughable to anyone who knows financial numbers.
What a ridiculous post.
You say subsidies that reduce the amount businesses and farmers pay for fossil fuel don't count because there is no business with that name?
That's just silly.
Those subsidies make using fossil fuels cheaper, if you instead turned them into aviation renewables subsidies than the airports/airlines would start figuring out how to use renewables instead of their suddenly more expensive, not subsidized fossil fuels.
These are also annual subsidies and not 'loans'.
What's holding back the government from switching if there's substantial benefits as you claim?
Or you could say your favorite GOP and the dems are both in bed with the big companies....if it's really bad and change is needed...it would've been done.
Don't be silly. These are agricultural and aviation subsidies. Fuel usage is the EASIEST method to track so that's what they've been using for decades. That's why gas is coloured.
Example. Dyed Deisel
What Is the Difference Between Clear and Coloured Diesel Fuel? | Core Fuels
There was a time when all diesel fuel sold in the North America was clear, without dye added to it. But times have changed. Today, diesel fuel is sold in Canada in clear and red forms; understanding the difference among these fuels – and among the tax and legal implications of each – is critical...
www.corefuels.ca
Red-Dyed diesel – Dyed diesel sold in the Canada is coloured red; by law, red-dyed gas is only for use in off-road vehicles, including farm tractors, heavy construction equipment, and generators, where higher-sulfur (max sulfur content of 3000-5000 mg/kg, depending on the type) fuel use is permissible. Because it is not to be used for on-road vehicles, this fuel is not taxed within Canada. (oh dear lord, NO! Not a Fossil Fuel Company subsidy but instead a hidden industry subsidy!)
REGULATIONS ON DYED DIESEL
Because dyed diesel is not taxed, federal and provincial laws strictly regulate its use; penalties for improper use of dyed fuel range from stiff financial penalties to significant jail time.
Distributors cannot knowingly transport dyed fuel with the intent to supply on-road vehicles, and fuel retail locations that carry dyed diesel cannot knowingly sell the gas for use in an on-road vehicle.
It would be hilarious to believe that this $ that agriculture & aviation receive would just disappear if - magical thinking - they went to renewables. If we somehow magicaly move to renewables over the next 10 years, it would be the flow of electricity to subsidize these industries - the same amount of $ would be transferred - nothing more, nothing less.
"These are also annual subsidies and not 'loans'"
Oh yes, because that's EXACTLY how the EDC, BDC and FinDev in Canada works. Annual giveaways.
I mean, why do we care about developing exports anyway right? How could exports possibly help create jobs and GDP. We should develop some juche.About exporting | How to export | EDC
Big or small, you can find new customers beyond our borders. This guide will help you on your exporting journey, wherever you may be.
In addition, if you go to the original source from your Yahoo post, Environmental Defence states, quote, " We don’t know the total amount of money being made available to oil and gas, but it could be a lot." ah...'could be'. A lot. maybe. THEY ADMIT THEY DON'T KNOW.
They also state in this report, " It’s not clear whether conditions will be attached to these loans. " So, your source calls it "Loans" but what do you call it? Huh. That's a great hill to die on.Moreover, don't forget, a LOT of the EDC loans don't even go to Canadian companies but loans to induce international companies to purchase from Canadian suppliers.
Here is an example article. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...bal-movement-aiming-to-halt-financing-to-oil/
"Of all the recipients of Canadian government support in recent years, Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) ranks among the strangest. Export Development Canada, a Crown corporation, provided 19 loans to Mexico’s state-owned oil company over 15 years, totalling somewhere between $3-billion and $5.7-billion (EDC only discloses ranges, not precise amounts). The Indian Oil Company received somewhere between $190-million and $425-million. Petrobras, Brazil’s state-owned oil company, got at least $1-billion."
So, please feel free to believe what you want to be believe 'cause you read it on twitter without investigating the 'truthiness' of it.
I mean, please feel free to prove my $ wrong. I don't see oodles of deep insightful analysis, based on original sources and not Yahoo, of these reports coming my way.
Last edited:
They are fuel subsidies, you can only use them on fossil fuel purchases.Don't be silly. These are agricultural and aviation subsidies. Fuel usage is the EASIEST method to track so that's what they've been using for decades. That's why gas is coloured.
Example. Dyed Deisel
What Is the Difference Between Clear and Coloured Diesel Fuel? | Core Fuels
There was a time when all diesel fuel sold in the North America was clear, without dye added to it. But times have changed. Today, diesel fuel is sold in Canada in clear and red forms; understanding the difference among these fuels – and among the tax and legal implications of each – is critical...www.corefuels.ca
Red-Dyed diesel – Dyed diesel sold in the Canada is coloured red; by law, red-dyed gas is only for use in off-road vehicles, including farm tractors, heavy construction equipment, and generators, where higher-sulfur (max sulfur content of 3000-5000 mg/kg, depending on the type) fuel use is permissible. Because it is not to be used for on-road vehicles, this fuel is not taxed within Canada. (oh dear lord, NO! Not a Fossil Fuel Company subsidy but instead a hidden industry subsidy!)
REGULATIONS ON DYED DIESEL
Because dyed diesel is not taxed, federal and provincial laws strictly regulate its use; penalties for improper use of dyed fuel range from stiff financial penalties to significant jail time.
Distributors cannot knowingly transport dyed fuel with the intent to supply on-road vehicles, and fuel retail locations that carry dyed diesel cannot knowingly sell the gas for use in an on-road vehicle.
It would be hilarious to believe that this $ that agriculture & aviation receive would just disappear if - magical thinking - they went to renewables. If we somehow magicaly move to renewables over the next 10 years, it would be the flow of electricity to subsidize these industries - the same amount of $ would be transferred - nothing more, nothing less.
"These are also annual subsidies and not 'loans'"
Oh yes, because that's EXACTLY how the EDC, BDC and FinDev in Canada works. Annual giveaways.
About exporting | How to export | EDC
Big or small, you can find new customers beyond our borders. This guide will help you on your exporting journey, wherever you may be.www.edc.ca
In addition, if you go to the original source from your Yahoo post, Environmental Defence states, quote, " We don’t know the total amount of money being made available to oil and gas, but it could be a lot." ah...'could be'. A lot. maybe. THEY ADMIT THEY DON'T KNOW.
Moreover, don't forget, a LOT of the EDC loans don't even go to Canadian companies but loans to induce international companies to purchase from Canadian suppliers.
Here is an example article. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...bal-movement-aiming-to-halt-financing-to-oil/
"Of all the recipients of Canadian government support in recent years, Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) ranks among the strangest. Export Development Canada, a Crown corporation, provided 19 loans to Mexico’s state-owned oil company over 15 years, totalling somewhere between $3-billion and $5.7-billion (EDC only discloses ranges, not precise amounts). The Indian Oil Company received somewhere between $190-million and $425-million. Petrobras, Brazil’s state-owned oil company, got at least $1-billion."
So, please feel free to believe what you want to be believe 'cause you read it on twitter without investigating the 'truthiness' of it.
I mean, please feel free to prove my $ wrong. I don't see oodles of deep insightful analysis, based on original sources and not Yahoo, of these reports coming my way.
View attachment 202103
the loonies have ben pushing the oil company subsidy nonsense non stop
The fact of the matter is the cash flow is from the energy industry to govt and it is massive
odd how Justin Trudeau who hates oil companies has not turned these so called "subsidies' off ?
He has done just everything else he can to shut down the industry
Last edited:
Oil and gas exploration and development can only go ahead with
drilling permits already obtained from the government. Our climate
warrior leaders simply have to deny oil producers' applications for
license and permits to drill new wells and oil production will cease to
grow and reverse. Even better imposing a quota on oil import from the
Middle East to the eastern coast would reduce oil consumption and
carbon emission in Ontario. Trudeau, Steven Guilbeault and Jonathan
Wilkinson are not as dumb as to kill the Canada goose with the golden
egg that is the Canadian Oil Sands industry as well as deep water
drillers in the eastern coast to save the climate. It is Trudeau's climate
sheeple voters crying fossil fuel subsidies who are the idiots suckered
into the climate change scam.
Climate activists have to get used to the reality that is
their fight against climate change would inevitably stop
at the oil patch.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more year to stop talking, start acting, on reducing emissions
The ongoing war in Ukraine is a wrenching issue, so is the lack of affordable housing in major cities; and, the COVID crisis is by no means over. Governments face myriad pressing challenges this year. But none is as frightening as climate change.
Susan Riley | Jan 09, 2023
www.hilltimes.com
their fight against climate change would inevitably stop
at the oil patch.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more year to stop talking, start acting, on reducing emissions
The ongoing war in Ukraine is a wrenching issue, so is the lack of affordable housing in major cities; and, the COVID crisis is by no means over. Governments face myriad pressing challenges this year. But none is as frightening as climate change.
Susan Riley | Jan 09, 2023
One more year to stop talking, start acting, on reducing emissions
Governments face myriad pressing challenges this year. But none is as frightening as climate change. That needs to be everyone’s unwavering focus, if 2023 is to live up to its early promise.
www.hilltimes.com
And the cost of electricity to charge those cars would sky rocket. There isn't nearly enough hydro generating plants to supply hydro for homes, factories, businesses and to charge millions of cars to 18 wheelers.
So put in more solar/wind.
Its cheaper than fossil fuels now.
Way cheaper than paying for crop failure, floods, storms and wind damage long term.
Wind and solar isn't the answer. Wind turbines and solar panels take up alot of real estate.
Not that much.
Turbines can go off the coast or on hills that aren't in use.
Solar panels can go on roofs, or across canals as they are doing in California.
Or parking lots like in France.
France Mandates Solar Panels On Most Parking Lots; A Great Marriage With The EV
France's bold plan will provide cheap solar power to EVs in the morning with no need for the grid's distribution costs. It's a great synergy.
www.forbes.com
Question, Dofasco steel mill in Hamilton is converting over to electric furnaces. That's a huge amount of hydro to run these 24/7. How many solar panel and wind turbines would be required to power these? Don't forget that they also need hydro to power the rest of the plant. And where would they go?Not that much.
Turbines can go off the coast or on hills that aren't in use.
Solar panels can go on roofs, or across canals as they are doing in California.
Or parking lots like in France.
France Mandates Solar Panels On Most Parking Lots; A Great Marriage With The EV
France's bold plan will provide cheap solar power to EVs in the morning with no need for the grid's distribution costs. It's a great synergy.
I'll wait for your answer.
Ontario has had an electricity surplus for over a decade.
But they are still building more, everything is going electric.
Ontario Newsroom
news.ontario.ca
