trudeau and notley to be schooled

[binthere]

well this week in calgary we have an australian in calgary who hopefully can knock some sense into some heads. chris berg from the institute of public affairs will enlighten some on the down falls and complete fallicy of their proposed carbon tax.

[mcfarms]

You can't argue with an Ideologue.

[ajl]

If either were capable of learning, they would not be pursuing the policies that they are.

[Hamloc]

There is an article the Calgary Sun resulting from an interview with Chris Berg. Looks like the tax lasted 2 years and cost Austrailia 8 billion a year with no benefit to Australians or the environment. Now of course I am sure some will say it wasn't in effect long enough but the fact remains any time the government increases the level of taxation it slows economic growth, it is a no brainer. Look at the latest rating released by the Fraser institute. This looks at 96 oil producing regions and their relative attractiveness for investment. Last year Alberta was ranked 25th., in 2014 Alberta was 15th, this year they are ranked 43rd. Saskatchewan is ranked 4th in 2016. Now again the socialists will say that is the Fraser institute, a biased right wing think tank, but the fact remains Alberta's unemployment rate continues to climb. Business doesn't like socialist governments with high taxes and ever increasing regulation, live in whatever dream you want, that's reality!!

[chuckChuck]

Global Petroleum Survey 2016
— Published on December 6, 2016
Global Petroleum Survey 2016

This report presents the results of the Fraser Institute’s 10th annual survey of petroleum industry executives and managers regarding barriers to investment in oil and gas exploration and production facilities in various jurisdictions around the globe. The survey responses have been tallied to rank provinces, states, other geographical regions (e.g. offshore areas), and countries according to the extent of such barriers. Those barriers, as assessed by the survey respondents, include high tax rates, costly regulatory obligations, uncertainty over environmental regulations and the interpretation and administration of regulations governing the “upstream” petroleum industry, and concerns with regard to the political stability and security of personnel and equipment.

A total of 381 respondents participated in the survey this year, providing sufficient data to evaluate 96 jurisdictions, which hold 66 percent of proved global oil and gas reserves and account for 75 percent of global oil and gas production.

The evaluated jurisdictions are assigned scores on each of 16 questions pertaining to factors known to affect investment decisions. These scores are then used to generate a “Policy Perception Index” for each jurisdiction that reflects the perceived extent of the barriers to investment. The jurisdictions are then sorted into clusters based on the size of their proved reserves, allowing for an apples-to-apples policy perception comparison of the resources that are available for commercialization.

Of the 12 jurisdictions with the largest petroleum reserves, Texas, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Alberta, and China are the five most likely to attract, or least likely to deter, investment. The five large-reserve jurisdictions least likely to attract investment on the basis of their Policy Perception Index scores (Venezuela, Libya, Russia, Indonesia, and Nigeria) account for 45 percent of the proved oil and gas reserves of all the jurisdictions included in the survey. Alberta is the only Canadian jurisdiction in the group of jurisdictions with large reserve holdings.

In the group of 36 jurisdictions with medium-sized reserves, the 10 that are the most attractive for investment are: Oklahoma, Wyoming, North Dakota, Norway—North Sea, the Netherlands, Arkansas, Norway—Other, Louisiana, United Kingdom—North Sea, and West Virginia. The only Canadian jurisdictions in this group are Newfoundland & Labrador (12th of 36) and British Columbia (18th of 36).

Of the 45 jurisdictions with relatively small proved oil and gas reserves, the top 10 performers are Kansas, Saskatchewan, Mississippi, Utah, Montana, Alabama, United Kingdom—Other, Manitoba, New Zealand, and Morocco. Nova Scotia, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories rank near the middle to the bottom of the small-reserve-holder group. New Brunswick was the least attractive jurisdiction in this group due to its poor Policy Perception Index scores on a number of survey questions.

When the attractiveness for investment is considered independently from the reserve size of jurisdictions (historically the primary focus of this survey), we find that jurisdictions with first quintile Policy Perception Index scores, suggesting that obstacles to investment are lower than in all other jurisdictions assessed by the survey, are almost all located in Canada, the United States, and Europe. According to this year’s survey, the 10 most attractive jurisdictions for investment worldwide are Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Saskatchewan, Wyoming, North Dakota, Norway—North Sea, Mississippi, Utah, and Montana. All but three of these jurisdictions—Wyoming, Utah, and Montana—ranked in the worldwide top 10 in the 2015 survey.

The 10 jurisdictions that are least attractive for investment are (starting with the worst): Venezuela, Quebec, Libya, Bolivia, New Brunswick, California, New South Wales, Ecuador, Ukraine, and Russia.

Our analysis of the 2016 petroleum survey results indicates that the extent of negative sentiment regarding key factors driving petroleum investment decisions has increased somewhat in many of the world’s regions. The United States continues to remain as the most attractive region for investment, followed by Australia, which moved ahead of Canada this year. Canada’s fall to the third most attractive region in the world for investment is reflective of Alberta’s continued deterioration, as investors continue to view the province as less attractive for investment.

[15444]

Seen on news today that Liberals are forecasting hard times for entire country until 2029 and we don't even have a carbon tax yet. #Canadas****ed

[chuckChuck]

Some thoughts on the rankings. Canada is still number 3 overall. Manitoba is in the top ten in small producers based on previous policies from a previous NDP government. (I thought all NDP governments are business unfriendly) I guess not.

Norway ranks very high even with a State owned oil company that runs its own show and partners with privates. Apparently socialist Northern European countries can be good places to invest.

I am curious to know what role profit potential plays because it doesn't seem to be included in the the survey results. I would think that profitability is very important in ranking investment opportunities. That needs more light.

Can we trust the Fraser institute or many of the oil executives to be objective or are they just using this survey for political reasons. From my perspective I would say not.

What about Suncor and Cenovus executives who support a carbon tax and who publicly supported Notley's carbon tax initiatives?

[chuckChuck]

15444, how much of that is in control of the Liberals? Very little. World prices for many commodities are low and we are too dependent on commodities. Australia is having problems as well I believe.

Saskatchewan ranks high on the oil investment study but the Saskatchewan economy is still in trouble.

So yes you can blame everything on the NDP and the Liberals but they didn't cause the prices to fall.

[stonepicker]

Well, i guess the ndp in mb. did a damn poor job of managing our resources then. All those years of high oil prices and yet we're over 35 billion in debt here in mb. chuck you don't have a clue about mb.'s oil and mb.'s very little industry at all.

[Hamloc]

Chuck2 just read an article on the Financial post website about how Mexico has surpassed Canada for the first time and will export more goods and services into the USA. Canada's global competitiveness continues to nosedive even with our devalued dollar. You can say and think what you want Chuck2 but the present course of the federal and Alberta governments will continue to make this worse!!

[Oliver88]

Will Trudeau and Notley learn from the Australian real life example of what a carbon tax did to their economy?

Or does their ideology not allow them to learn from a friends mistake?

[chuckChuck]

What about the carbon tax in BC? What was the result?

B.C.’s carbon tax shift works

Stewart Elgie and Richard Lipsey, Special to Financial Post | January 22, 2015 | Last Updated: Jan 22 2:07 PM ET
More from Special to Financial Post
Starting July 1, 2008, B.C. put a tax on fossil fuels.
Les Bazso/Postmedia News filesStarting July 1, 2008, B.C. put a tax on fossil fuels.

B.C. brought in a carbon tax, fuel use dropped 16% while it rose 3% in the rest of Canada

We Canadians hesitate to pat ourselves on the back, even when we do something well. Like B.C.’s carbon tax shift. Around the world, prominent economic authorities, like the World Bank and OECD, and business and environmental leaders have called it one of the world’s best climate policies: an environmental and economic success.

Terence Corcoran (a climate change skeptic) and Philip Cross don’t agree. But their articles in the Financial Post provide an inaccurate picture of the effects of B.C.’s policy. Controlling carbon emissions is a critical issue. Canadians deserve a full and accurate picture of the facts, so they can draw their own conclusions.

First some background. Starting July 1, 2008, B.C. put a tax on fossil fuels (which cause greenhouse gas emissions). It started low and rose annually, reaching today’s $30/tonne (about 7 cents a litre of gas) in 2012. Revenue neutral by law, the proceeds from the carbon tax are matched by cuts in other taxes (like income tax). Now to the results.

B.C.’s personal and corporate income tax rates are now among the lowest in Canada

The tax covers most types of fossil fuels. Since it came in, B.C.’s total use of those fuels has dropped by 16.1% (2008-13). By contrast, in the rest of Canada fuel use went up by 3% over that time. B.C.’s dramatic drop since the tax marks a big change from the previous eight years (2000-2008), when its fuel use was actually rising slightly compared to the rest of Canada’s. (These results reflect the latest available Statistics Canada data, and were published in a leading research journal.)

Cross and Corcoran don’t dispute these powerful overall results. But they suggest that a big explanation was B.C. motorists buying gas in Washington State. While cross border shopping did increase after 2008, mainly due to the rising Canadian dollar, this explains only about 1% of the 16% decline in B.C.’s fuel use since the carbon tax, according to two different researchers. (It’s common sense; only a small fraction of all B.C.ers would endure the time and cost of a border-crossing to save a few dollars on gas.)

Even if you look just at one type of fuel, motor gas (which is all that Cross and Corcoran do), you see a similar pattern. From July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2014, B.C.’s per capita use of motor gas fell by 0.5%, while in the rest of Canada it rose by 1.6%. (Cross and Corcoran give different figures, probably because they look at B.C. gas use since January 1, 2008 – six months before the tax even started.)
Related

Terence Corcoran: No B.C. carbon tax miracle on 120th St.
Philip Cross: Carbon tax ‘magic’ is sleight of hand

Moreover, B.C. significantly outperformed the rest of Canada on each of the fuels covered by the carbon tax, including home heating oil and natural gas. This consistent result across all fuel types is strong evidence that the policy is working well. And it further debunks the cross-border shopping argument (people aren’t hauling their home-heating oil tanks to Washington).

As for the economy, B.C.’s GDP has slightly outperformed the rest of Canada’s since the carbon tax began. This makes sense. BC simply raised taxes on pollution and lowered them on income. Since 2008, the province has cut income taxes by almost $1 billion more than it has taken in carbon revenues – so taxpayers are ahead overall. B.C.’s personal and corporate income tax rates are now among the lowest in Canada, making it an attractive place to do business.

Yet Cross argues (without evidence) that it is “a fantasy” to think we can reduce fossil fuel use (and greenhouse gases) without harming the economy. This is a bizarre claim. Canadians know from everyday experience in their homes and businesses that there are many economically sensible ways to conserve energy and reduce fuel use – like switching to fluorescent light bulbs, or fuel efficient cars and furnaces.

If putting a price on carbon is such an economically bad idea, why is it being recommended by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the World Bank, and the CEOs of major oil companies?”

Certainly, more analysis can be done to better understand how much of B.C.’s big drop in fuel use has been due to the carbon tax (so far, the evidence suggests most of it). But that it has helped the environment, without harming the economy, seems pretty clear. So let’s move on.

While carbon pricing alone won’t solve climate change, it is an excellent beginning. The real debate is no longer about whether to price carbon, but how to do so most effectively. What price (or emission target) to set? How to buffer the effects on vulnerable households and businesses? And how to use the revenues to maximize environmental and economic benefits? These are the real questions to discuss if we’re serious about making progress on climate policy, and building a clean, prosperous economic future.

Stewart Elgie is a professor at University of Ottawa and Chair of Sustainable Prosperity. Richard Lipsey is professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University and a member of Statistics Canada’s National Accounts Advisory Committee.