MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123291317

Drilling Down on Royalties: How Canadian Provinces Can Improve Non-Renewable Resource Taxes

2015· article· en· W3123291317 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueBusinessNatural resourceResource (disambiguation)Natural resource economicsEconomicsCash flowTax revenueFinancePublic economics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From coast to coast, non-renewable-resource taxation is a key source of provincial government revenue – and political rancour. Alberta has recently started a comprehensive review of its oil and natural gas extraction tax system. Newfoundland and Labrador is looking at a redesign of its royalty system. And British Columbia has set up a new tax on liquefied natural gas production. These provinces can all improve their current resource tax systems to raise more money without jeopardizing investment. The key problem with current resource taxes in Canada is not the tax rates, but the design of the taxes. Canadian policymakers should be looking at international best practices in resource tax design. Australia and Norway have best-in-class resource taxes that are based on the cash flows of resource production. That better design means that resource companies in those countries pay a high tax rate on cash flows but still have a strong incentive to invest. Western Canadian provinces instead rely on economically distorting gross-revenue royalties for most onshore oil and gas taxation. These provinces should change their gross-revenue royalties to more efficient cash-flow taxes. Cash-flow taxes are a better way of reflecting the cumulative costs that resource companies face to extract energy than are gross revenue royalties. Although Alberta’s oil sands cash-flow tax and Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore royalty follow many international best practices, both have room for improvement. Those provinces should rethink the rules around how companies pre-pay gross revenue royalties, the limits on the kinds of expenses companies can deduct, and having a royalty rate that fluctuates with oil prices. British Columbia’s mining tax hits many of the right notes. However, the province’s tax on liquefied natural gas exports would be unnecessary if it changed its gross-revenue royalties on natural gas extraction to cash-flow taxes. Likewise, the federal government should consider reforms to its own corporate income tax system to tax cash flows, not profits. Canadian provinces have collected about $79 billion in resource-specific tax revenues from 2009 to 2013. But the provinces can collect more while not harming investment in mining and oil and natural gas extraction if they change their distortive gross-revenue royalties into better designed cash-flow taxes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it