At present the oil heading south is being discounted by nearly 50% of the WTI posted price. You would be hard pressed to find gasoline selling for more per liter in the USA than in Canada.
Gasoline prices have risen over the last month in the USA. The price in the Phoenix area is $3.60 – 3.79 per US gallon. At 3.78 liters per USG that relates to a price of $0.95 – $1.00 per liter.
Sure hope when returning to PG I have to pay the world price of a buck a liter.
It isn’t just gasoline the Canadian consumer gets hosed on. It applies to food items, clothing, autos, and just about every other item. And the Canadian retailer wonders why there is a rush at the border each weekend as Canadians head south to fill up their tanks and buy staples.

Where are these numbers coming from? I don’t think a $20 per barrel increase in crude means a $0.54 cent increase in gas prices.

Here’s a link to the rack prices across the country. The rack price is the wholesale price that gas stations buy their gas for. It’s the price before road taxes, GST, PST, carbon taxes, etc.

http://www.petro-canada.ca/en/wholesalefuel/5531.aspx

Note that Halifax has the same rack price as Prince George.

How can that be? The price of crude in Halifax is $20 per barrel higher than here…

The fact is that a $20 per barrel increase in crude makes no difference to the local price of gas.

It’s the same reason that stumpage price for timber makes no difference to the price you pay for lumber at Home Depot.

We in Canada are suckers,oil companys when pressured will tell the truth, its what the market will bare and pay.They know in the north you have little choice for transportation. Governments rake in millions more in tax so they say very little.

If the royalty Alberta gets is a fixed amount per barrel then it doesn’t matter if the price per barrel fluctuates.

Besides, Alberta features one of the lowest royalty rates in the world. For instance, the same internationals which operate in Alberta often pay about twice the royalty per barrel then they pay to Alberta. Norway was cited as an example recently.

To answer the question in the article: Paying more for gasoline would encourage conservation, that alone is a win. You greenies are going to have to stop and think about what you say: you cannot on one hand demand the world stop using oil, then 5 minutes later also demand an unlimited supply of dirt cheap gasoline, which we all know only encourages waste of this valuable resource. Stop and think about that.

You also have a warped idea of what a “subsidy” is and fail to properly identify the correct location of the subsidy. The real question is thus: Is it subsidy to sell our oil abroad and pay fair “world” prices at home as you say, or is it subsidy to handcuff Canadian oil producers to our own domestic oil market which is laughably small (as in too small to support itself on its own) and subject to massive foreign (American) manipulation just so Canadians can enjoy artificially low gasoline prices??? THAT my friend is subsidy.

Many Canadians have a warped view of the oil industry. The first step is education and understanding, only then should you speak your thoughts from a position of knowledge. Until then, all your postings should be in the form of questions until you gain sufficient knowledge.

The only ones making out like bandits from a low price for oil in Alberta (and BC by the way), are the refineries.

Saying ‘no’ to Enbridge is probably the right move, but don’t think for a second that it will mean lower prices for gas locally. It will slightly–ever so slightly lower the price of gas across the globe.

It’s like taking a gallon of water out of the Pacific on the west coast of BC and thinking that you will lower the ocean only in BC. It’s silly.

We’ll say ‘no’ to Enbridge and that’s fine, but the only impact we’ll see is less tax revenue from the oil industry and that will be made up by the rest of us paying more in income and sales tax.

Paying more for gasoline would encourage conservation, that alone is a win.

——————————————–

Pray tell…how do you conserve?

Many people in the north drive trucks, because we need them for work, hauling firewood and other things that a little Toyota Corolla just cannot do. So we buy a small car for $15K and make payments, plus pay for another set of license plates and insurance…and just drive that to ‘conserve”?

I guess if we all lived in a well populated urban center we could ride a bus or jump on a skytrain…but this is northern BC.

So pray tell…how should we conserve??

Petrocan’s web site isn’t working so well. Here are the rack prices from Shell.

https://services.shell.ca/postedprices/rackprice/rackprice_en.html

jim: “So pray tell…how should we conserve??”

Maybe there would be a few less people driving duallies and one ton trucks around PG like it’s some sort of god given right. Just a thought.

Jim13135,
You might not be able to figure out how to conserve anything, but society as a whole will conserve if prices are higher. The carbon tax has had a huge impact on lowering gas consumption.

You see Johnny, a smart fellow like you should be able to come up with a way to conserve that is a little more thought out than that.

Is it conserving to pay for a small car, additional insurance, depreciation, maintenance etc so you can park your one ton truck?? Spending $600 per month for a small car to save $200 on fuel is something a BC Liberal would think is a good idea…but working people don’t have the luxury of running a deficit home budget.

Ice, all the carbon tax has done is raise my monthly expenses…meaning less for investing in retirement savings, paying down debt, or buying goods from local retailers. The carbon tax takes money out of our community and the benefits are..we might have some people not buy as much fuel?? I seriously doubt anyone can provide statistics that support that claim.

“hauling firewood” ….. you have to be joking …..

Distill the wood, put it into your tank, then haul the firewood if you think that is a better way.

Distilling wood (in a sense) is not such a far fetched idea. I think it is sweden that still has a large percentage of vehicles that run on biomass such as gases derived from essentially woodsmoke. In WWII england and europe, coal and woodpowered vehicles were a necessity that only went away with the return of petroleum production after the war. You can run any internal combustion engine on gases filtered out of burning wood without modifiying it at all, and it takes a surprisingly little amount of wood fuel to run a sizeable engine.

I will suggest that most of the heavy pickup users on PG roads choose trucks based on a cultural bias instead of need or utility. It would be interesting to see a analysis of the use of pickup boxes “in use” versus “running empty.” Probably 95% plus run empty. But it is cool to run a dually around with a lift kit modified exhaust system.

Now, if one made the argument for pickups as a defence against pot hole inflicted damage … maybe you would get more support

Lots of pickup drivers have boats, travel trailers, snow mobiles, slide in campers etc..and some haul water and firewood for their rural properties…sure you see them empty a majority of the time but what is the alternative that makes financial sense???

So you think pickups are bad how about a Hummer in the Superstore parking lot just to pick up some groceries.
Cheers

Lots of pickup drivers have boats, travel trailers, snow mobiles, slide in campers etc..and some haul water and firewood for their rural properties

=============================================
Jim … you are accurate in your assessment of use … which only supports the argument of culture versus need … no one “needs” a boat, travel trailer, snow mobile, slide in camper to get to work, go to school, the doctors office or the grocery store … again, choosing to live in the rural environent is a cultural choice, not a “need”. (By the way, I lived in the bush for over a decade, hauled and heated exclusively with firewood, camped, boated, etc. and never ran a heavy pickup. .. it is a matter of choice)

Anotherside>>correct it’s not always about ‘need’….should everything be decided by ‘needs’ or should we be able to enjoy the ‘fruits of our labour’ without getting taxed to death for doing something in BC??

For many the answer is to ‘get out of Dodge’ and move to somewhere that your not taxed to death……

Nobody has come up with a viable way to ‘conserve’ and cut down on our use of fuel in our everyday lives yet…still waiting for some enlightenment that makes sense…
:-)

Seems we always get into this argument about the type of cars we drive etc; Which of course has nothing to do with the price of gas, or with conservation.

People can’t seem to get it through their heads, that gasoline/diesel is a finite product. If we do not burn the gas/diesel in Canada, then it will be exported to other Countries, ie; China, India, Europe, etc; and burned there. You can rest assured that for every gallon of gas you save in Canada, that same gallon will be burned somewhere else in the world.

So quit buying into the conservation BS. We may conserve here, but what we conserve will be burned somewhere else.

Within the next 5/10 years Mexico will go from a net exporter of oil to an importer. This will have a huge impact on oil sales to the USA. Mexico is a big supplier. Canada can benefit from the decline in Mexico’s exports, if we don’t sell out everything to the big oil companies.

Alberta is getting screwed on royalties, because they are determined on the price of gross, or net revenue, and bitumen oil is priced far below West Texas Crude, or Mexican oil. The Americans get Canadian oil cheap, (pay less royalties) and then refine the oil and get a huge profit on the finished product.

Having another outlet may or may not get us any lower prices in Canada, because the oil will still be priced low to the refineries, who will still make huge profits on the finished product.

Soooooo. We need (as Ben says) a two priced system in Canada. One would be the export price to compete on world markets, and the other would be a domestic price for Canadian consumption. The Canadian price should reflect the cost of production, and distribution in Canada, plus a (REASONABLE) profit for the oil Companies.

The Government of Canada, and the Provinces in addition to getting money from the Royalties, also make money by taxing gasoline at the pumps. The Governments could go a long way to making cheaper gas available by backing away, or at least holding the line on gas taxes.

If there is a will there is a way.

Pal, US refineries are getting cheap oil because of lack of pipeline capacity to the gulf. Canadian producers are taking a discount because of this, not some collusion between big oil and refiners. Once and if Keystone is built, it will norrow these spreads significantly.

As far as some form of dual pricing for domestic and export. Sounds good over a beer, but the reality is it will never happen. Which producers would take low domestic prices for their product and who gets the higher export price? The NEP was an attempt to do this with disasterous results.

I’ve been saying stuff like this for quite a while now. Why the hell should we pay ‘world’ prices for this stuff when it comes from our own back yards? You can bet that other countries heavily subsidize their products so their own citizens pay less.

Its just one more way Canada is becoming more ‘American’. Whoever dies with the most cash….wins.

Better that we pay world prices and see the discounts elsewhere (like on our taxes).

If we paid ten cents a litre, no one would worry about wasting it.

Because low gasoline prices are not your birthright – contrary to anything you’ve been told. You could always supply your own gasoline. That project should only cost a few mil. Don’t have that much? Guess you’re stuck paying for it like the rest of us because if we left oil extraction up to people like you, we’d all freeze to death in the dark. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO GASOLINE! Curb your arrogance.

And to answer the question of how we’re supposed to conserve, the answer is very simple: lower your standard of living. Since the standard of living for every human is directly proportional to the amount of oil they consume, you simply need to tolerate a harsher existence. That’s a tough pill but one you’ll need to swallow if you want to be able to A) look down your nose at all us oil consumers and B) lead by example and show the world we don’t need oil. Good luck with that. I’m sure everyone will be clamouring to join your cause dying of dysentery in the woods. Until then, you and everyone else better wise up, face facts and learn to love oil and the pipes that come with it.

Fairness for anyone has nothing to do with the price of fuel. Greed is the only thing that has to do with it. Having a monopoly and all your neighbors as shareholders in that monoply also plays a part.

Gamblor. High gasoline prices are not the **birthright** of the oil companies, even if they would like you to think so.

The oil companies do not have a very good reputation around the world when it comes to exploiting Countries and their people.

Soooooo. Quit supporting the bad behavior of these Multi Nationals. All I’m saying is that we need a better distribution of the **profits**. Ie; less profits for the Multi Nationals, and cheaper gas for the consumer. Less taxes from Governments.

Don’t forget that the propaganda supporting the oil industry is paid for by the oil industry. If you believe their BS, then I guess you will believe anything.

Cheaper gas and diesel prices would go a long way to reducing the cost of everything we buy in this Country. Especially in the North.

Oil Companies see consumers as toilets, and all they have ever done is dump on them.

There’s a simple compromise solution for all this. Allow construction of pipelines to carry bitumen to Edmonton. Upgrade and/or build refineries there, then pipe the refined product either east or west. Alberta still keep their royalties and a more environmentally safe product is piped to market. BC can reap the benefits of pipeline construction, prepare proper emergency plans, etc. Energy companies will get a better price for the value added product.

Yes, this will take longer but maybe it’s time to stop short term thinking and come up with a sensible energy policy that will produce long term benefits. It’s not as if the oil will go bad or seep away if not not used.

Oil belongs to those with the means to extract it. Without extraction, it serves no purpose. So by extension, yes that also means those with simple means have very VERY little say in what happens to said resource. Its just the nature of things. Deal with it. You need oil to maintain your lifestyle. You are addicted just like everyone else. Be glad you have oil at all.

We are addicted to food and water also. Does this mean that if the price gets out of control that we should die of hunger or thirst, or should we do something about it.

The oil companies have the means to extract the oil, and we have the means to make them pay. (through our Government and royalties) Both the Government and the Oil Companies need to ensure that the average Citizens gets something out of this resource.

It’s a good point, Palopu.

The only way we’re all going to get more out of it, is if we sell it for more. Giving it away is a crime.

Energy policy is the cornerstone of an economies productivity. It counts more than anything else. Taxes count, and how innovative the workers are counts, and the quality of infrastructure and machinery counts as well… but above and beyond all of it energy is the most important aspect of a productive economy.

Energy is a multiplier of wealth through its productive means. The value creation in its transformation to goods and services sets the standard of life for those operating in the market.

Energy is not the birth-rite of those with the capital to extract it. It belongs to the Crown for allocation to industry to best meet the needs of the provincial economies… all stakeholders included. Nationalized productivity if need be as an essential piece of infrastructure to a modern economy.

Energy companies are in it for their shareholders earnings and will price to what ever the market will bear. If they can get higher prices on the world markets they will price at that level to maximize their shareholders profits to be damned with the competitiveness of the greater economy… ie Dutch disease.

Governments are bought and paid for by corporate elites and the energy policy reflects this. All taxes on energy are regressive taxes… meaning they are flat taxes on consumption like the HST, gas tax, and the carbon taxes… they in no way reflect ability to pay, but are arbitrary across the board regardless of need or income level… so long as revenue targets are met

The carbon tax paid to heat your home or drive your car to work everyday is applied whether your income is below the poverty level or you earn a 6-figure income… both pay the same total tax bill for a necessity in the North. The carbon tax is thus a consistent and steady revenue source for government accountants and is a replacement for less consistent progressive income taxes mostly paid for by elites and high income earners.

Arguments by the likes of gamblor in favor of high carbon taxes are not made to induce you to conserve and ride your bike to work, but rather to pay for the much larger income tax cuts for the high end earners enjoyed because of the extra revenue generated by the likes of a carbon tax. It is conspiracy and coincidence by the elites to have lower and middle income earners pay for the high income earners far share of taxes… a flat tax on energy, rather than a progressive tax on income… it has nothing to do with saving the environment especially when it raises the local base level of energy closer to the world market prices that are pure profit for the energy companies.

Canadians are stakeholders in our national energy policy and as such deserve consideration. I think two things are necessary:

#1 Export taxes should be applied to energy exports to ensure they pay for their carbon tax advantage and ensure Canadian domestic energy is in line with national productivity targets.

#2 Needless domestic regressive taxation on consumption should be phased out… possible income tax credits for energy taxes below a certain income level, or just phase out energy taxation all together and find other ways to tax profits and earnings rather than the necessities of consumption.

First we need a real government of the people that represents a free enterprise economic model, rather than the regressive anti competition silos of monopolies and elites.

Gamblor says, Paying more for gasoline would encourage conservation

Gamblor everything in this town arrived here by truck. Fuel prices go up so does all your stuff and food, think about it.

gamblor: we do keep asking questions and trying to get some understanding about this. All we get back is BS.

Oh, and all the carbon tax and carbon credits scheme is a big ripoff. Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global warming.

I didn’t read all the posts above but I would like to inform you all that selling oil to the US for 55 dollars a barrel is downright stupid when we can get the world price of 100 dollars from China. As well, China would be glad to pay the going price for a steady supply. My opinion is that we should say to hell with the US pipeline and gain absolutely billions of dollars by selling it to China. That pipeline to Rupert would be a nuclear sized boost to the Canadian economy, even though I would rather see us sell a finished product.
The USA is making billions and billions of dollars on our oil and we are paying a high price for the finished product. If they are going to gouge us for gas, we may as well just buy their gas and sell our oil at world prices elsewhere. And why do we not have a giant refinery in Canada?? We have lots of room! I refuse to believe we can’t find the laborers to build one. Git’er done!! Where are the Feds and Alberta on this whole scenario? My guess is they are afraid to step on Uncle Sam’s toe. I say to hell with the USA. They have enough oil and we are damned stupid to be seeling ours at bargain basement prices to them.