Alberta Royalty Review Part Fourteen: Summary

In this article, I will briefly highlight major points raised in my prior articles. To help keep this article brief and easy to read, I will use bullet points throughout most of the article. If you want more depth, please read my individual articles leading to this summary. Please note that my summary will not necessarily follow the same order of the original articles.

 

Spacing added for weblog formatting purposes.

 

 

 

 

1. Royalty Review Terms of Reference
   • A quote from page 101 of the Report:

     An independent Panel of experts will review all aspects of the oil and gas royalty system, including conventional and oil sands. The Panel will also examine the tax regime faced by the resource companies, including income tax and freehold mineral rights levied on freehold mineral rights holders.

2. High Level Recommendations
   1. Prepayout
      • 1% gross revenue royalty.
   2. Postpayout
      • 1% gross revenue royalty (treated as a cost) plus,
      • 33% net revenue royalty.
   3. Oil Sands Severance Tax (OSST)
      • Starting at C$40 WTI, 1% gross revenue increasing by 0.1% for every dollar until 9% at $120 WTI.
      • Ineligible for payout calcuation purposes and nondeductible for federal and provincial taxes.
   4. Upgrader Credits
      • 5% of the capital cost for additional upgrader capacity in Alberta/
3. Did the governments and National Oil Sands Task Force (NOSTF) propose fair and equitable terms back in the 1990s?
   • While a thorough discussion of constitutes fair and equitable terms is a good exercise, let us for the moment assume that the governments and NOSTF did propose fair and equitable terms at roughly one third value to each of the following key project stakeholders: developer, province, and federal government.
4. Changes in tax rates since the mid 1990s
   1. In the mid 1990s, the federal rate, including large corporate surtax, was 29.12% and provincial rate was 15.5%.
   2. The federal rate will soon be at 18.5% and the provincial rate is at 10%. The provincial and federal tax rates were approximately 50% higher in the mid 1990s.
   3. If we accept that the sharing of the economic value pie was correct in 1990s, then the fiscal regime must be changed now just to reflect differences in taxation rates, let alone changes in commodity prices and other circumstances.
5. Resource Allowance and Royalty Rate
   1. Resource Allowance was set to 25% of resource income. Resource allowance has been replaced by actual royalty paid.
   2. If the province were to increase its royalty beyond 25%, the federal government is likely to cap the allowable deduction of royalty to 25% (back to resource allowance again) to preserve their portion of the economic value pie.
   3. By not having the federal government involved in the creation of a harmonious oil sands fiscal regime, the current proposal is likely dead on arrival. The federal government is unlikely to support a massive royalty increase, much of which will come at their expense unless the federal government caps the royalty deduction amount. Again, federal government is likely to cap the royalty amount as a federal tax deduction.
6. Support for Federal Elimination of Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance (ACCA)
   1. With ACCA, developers and engineers are more efficient in that they seek to spend the minimum amount of capital to address an issue; they will build infrastructure (capital expenditures) to address an issue because it reduces the project's ongoing operating costs.
   2. With the elimination of ACCA, developers and engineers are more likely to increase operating costs than spend capital dollars to address an issue because operating costs are more tax efficient; the downside is that higher operating costs increase the project's risk to a sustained downturn in oil prices or a sustained upturn in input costs.
7. Royalty Credits for Upgraders is Flawed
   • Royalty credits for upgraders are flawed because it does not consider the profitability of the developer. Imagine if oil prices were to hit all time highs, yet we citizens were subsidizing extraordinarily rich oil companies' investments in new upgraders. It makes no sense.
8. Royalty Based On Bitumen
   1. A bitumen based royalty is challenging because of the challenge of valuing bitumen and creating an open and transparent market for bitumen. Every project produces its own unique concoction of bitumen. All bitumen products from different developers with have different levels of fines (sand and clay), sulfur content, and other impurities.
      • Moreover, each upgrader is specifically configured to process its own feedstock. In other words, Upgrader Z values its feedstock differently than Upgrader Y would.
   2. A bitumen based royalty might kneecap future investments in upgraders when the current large heavy light oil differential disappears and upgraders return to being marginal investments. Upgraders are normally marginal investments. If, in the future, normality returns and a project requires an upgrader, it might be unable to proceed with the overall project because the cost of the upgrader is prohibitive and cannot be used to offset royalties. At present, a developer can elect to its royalty based on synthetic crude oil or bitumen. Because of the wide differential between light and heavy oil, a bitumen based royalty is preferred today.
9. Oil Sands Severance Tax (OSST)
   1. The Oil Sands Severance Tax is very punitive because it kicks in before payout and because it will harm new entrants most.
   2. Having a provincial OSST ineligible for the purposes of the royalty payout calculation and having it non deductible for provincial and federal taxes is poor policy
      1. It might discourage or delay developers from undertaking expansion, debottlenecking or efficiency projects.
      2. It might discourage or delay developers from undertaking additional environmental projects.
      3. It sets a poor precedent for taxation in Canada, giving Canada an unsavory reputation.
      4. Although not mentioned in the detailed article, what if the federal government wants to implement a windfall or carbon non deductible tax of their own? Should these windfall tax programs be coordinated between both levels of government?
   3. A challenge with burdening companies during good times with OSST, do governments come to the rescue during bad times?
10. Undiscounted Cash Flow Graphs for Comparison Purposes
    • In the report, the Panel showed various graphs for fiscal regimes around the world. These graphs, however, usually showed undiscounted cash flows. Perhaps that works well when comparing various conventional resources, but when comparing conventional and oil sands, it does not. Conventional production follows an exponential decline, meaning that most of the cash flow comes early in life, usually within the first ten years. Oil Sands have a steady or increasing production with time, meaning that much of its cash flow comes later in life, usually after the first 15 years. Thus, the sum of undiscounted cash flow charts will overstate the relative value received by oil sands companies.
11. Complexity of Proposed Regime
    • The new royalty regime is complex. The Panel proposed a 1% gross revenue royalty payable before and after payout. Post payout, an additional 33% net royalty is adjusted partially to account for the initial 1% gross royalty. In other words, the 1% gross royalty is treated as a cost in the post payout calculation. As mentioned previously, the OSST is an additional royalty or tax payment that is calculated and applied separately.
12. Open Process
    • I commend the Panel for putting the whole review process into the public domain. That is where it belongs.

I am critical of the Alberta Review Panel Final Report (PDF, 2.25mb). From my understanding, there does not appear to be a harmonious design between royalties and taxes. The Panel appears not to have considered the federal government's role in setting an overall fiscal regime. When it proposed provincial royalties beyond 25%, I knew that amount would be partially paid by the federal government, something that the federal government is unlikely to accept. At that point, I concluded that the Report was dead on arrival.

From there, I read the Report carefully and found other flaws, some of which are substantial. The Panel had the opportunity and, presumably, the resources to recommend a fiscal regime that would restore fairness to the citizens of Alberta and Canada. To act upon this opportunity in a proper fashion, the Panel needed to have broad wide ranging view. Instead, the Panel's view was rather myopic. It did not think through the implications of its design. It did not even bother to quantify the values to each of the major stakeholders, a fundamental act in any negotiation. Instead, it relied upon wonky international undiscounted cash flow summaries, which do not capture value well, and marginal effective tax rates, which are not effective measures when capital is returned to a developer in an expedient fashion. Moreover, the OSST has a host of issues of its own. In short, I believe the Panel's work is deeply flawed.

As an Albertan, I am disappointed.

Calgary model Judith Aldama is featured in the photograph, which is hosted at Flickr. If you click on the picture of Judith, you will be taken to where you can view a larger version and see even more pictures of her.