'Leave the oil in the ground': Same debates, different country
It's different in Guyana, Selwin reports: 'Where you have strong economic interests, that will prevail.' Between Exxon and Chevron, American companies 'now control the majority of Guyana's oil output … so it's heavily in the interest of the U.S. to protect their economic interests.'
Article content
(Exxon, operator and owner of 45 per cent of Guyana's Stabroek block, forecasts its output there to nearly double to 1.3 million bpd by the end of 2027. And Chevron now owns 30 per cent of the block.)
Article content
There's no denying Canada is economically tied to America's hip, yet this conversation with Selwin is a reminder of the choices Canada retains.
Article content
Foreign companies do invest in Canada's extractive sectors, but domestic ownership remains strong and influential. And while Canadians are struggling to define First Nations treaty rights within Confederation, we don't have another nation actually challenging our sovereignty. Venezuela is actively disputing Guyana's control over the Essequibo region, territory that makes up two-thirds of Guyana's landmass and includes oil and other resources.
Article content
Article content
Selwin has thought deeply about the issues that bubble in nation-building endeavours and he's savvy enough to know what's negotiable. Right now, he's especially focused on one question: Who benefits from Guyana's resource windfall?
Article content
After the first significant oil discovery in offshore Guyana was made by ExxonMobil, Selwin argued his country should adopt something similar to the Alaska sovereign wealth fund model.
Article content
'I believe it is critical that the public remains vigilant,' Selwin wrote then in a Guyanese newspaper, 'and so I urge that we go the path of Alaska by adopting a model of dividends for all. The introduction of the Alaska model of paying dividends to every Alaskan from their oil and gas resources would work wonders to strengthen the good governance model and ensure an engaged populace.'
Article content
Article content
How many Canadians know oilsands projects contribute roughly 3 per cent of our country's total GDP? How many Canadians understand the mechanics of equalization payments, how wealth is transferred from have to have-not provinces to ensure non-renewable resource bounty is shared?
Article content
Ultimately, a sovereign wealth fund was created in Guyana but, Selwin reports, the funds have largely been squandered. He did the math at the end of 2024, to see what the outcome could have been if the government of Guyana had heeded his advice. (He's a former investment banker, so his calculations are credible.) The fund would likely have grown to roughly $1.5 billion, he estimates, the equivalent of US$50,000 to $60,000 for every Guyanese citizen, and would continue to grow quickly, he adds.
Article content
Selwin is encouraging leaders in Guyana to focus not just on the building of physical infrastructure, but on the building of a culture of productivity in the country as well.
Article content
What's that, I ask. 'That's culture where it's not just about the pay,' he says, it's culture that 'respects the dignity of being productive.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
2 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
ExxonMobil Continues to Show That It's the Best Oil Stock
Key Points Exxon reported sector-leading earnings in the second quarter. The company also returned more cash to investors than its peers and ended the quarter with the industry's best balance sheet. Exxon expects to maintain its leadership position in the coming years. 10 stocks we like better than ExxonMobil › ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) is in a class of its own. The oil company recently reported its second-quarter financial results, which led the sector across most key categories. The company is in an excellent position to continue delivering leading results going forward, making it a compelling oil stock to buy and hold for the long term. Drilling down into Exxon's second-quarter financial results ExxonMobil earned $7.1 billion and generated $11.5 billion in cash flow from operations in the second quarter. That led all international oil companies (IOCs) by a wide margin. Exxon's earnings were more than double Chevron 's ($3.1 billion) and well ahead of Shell 's ($4.3 billion). "The second quarter, once again, proved the value of our strategy and competitive advantages, which continue to deliver for our shareholders no matter the market conditions or geopolitical developments," stated CEO Darren Woods in the second-quarter earnings release. The oil giant delivered its highest second-quarter production total since the merger of Exxon and Mobil more than a quarter century ago at 4.6 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per day. Its output rose 13%, fueled mainly by its acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources. Additionally, Exxon reported the best quarter yet for high-value product sales in its products solution segment. Another factor fueling Exxon's strong financial results is its structural cost savings program. The company has delivered $1.4 billion of savings this year, increasing its total to $13.5 billion since 2019. That's more than all other IOCs combined. Exxon's strong cash flows enabled it to return an industry-leading $9.2 billion to its shareholders in the second quarter through dividends and share repurchases, leading the oil sector. It's on track to buy back $20 billion of its stock this year. Since May 2024, Exxon has already purchased about 40% of the shares it issued to buy Pioneer Natural Resources. Even with those lofty cash returns, Exxon maintained its sector-leading balance sheet featuring the industry's lowest leverage ratio, at 8% net debt to capital. Even better days lie ahead for the oil giant Exxon has commenced operations on six key projects this year and expects to start up four more by year-end. "Collectively, these projects are expected to improve our earnings power by more than $3 billion in 2026 at constant prices and margins," commented CEO Darren Woods in the second-quarter earnings press release. Those projects are only the beginning. Exxon's plan to 2030 has it on pace to invest $140 billion in major capital projects and its Permian Basin development program over the next five years. Exxon also aims to deliver a total of $18 billion in structural cost savings by the end of 2030. The company estimates that this plan will provide it with incremental growth potential of $20 billion in earnings and $30 billion in cash flow by 2030. That positions it to deliver compound annual growth rates of 10% for earnings and 8% for cash flow over the next several years. The oil giant's plan would produce a staggering $165 billion in cumulative surplus cash over the next five years. That will provide Exxon with ample funds to continue increasing its dividend (a sector-leading 42 consecutive years) and repurchasing a substantial amount of stock. (It plans to repurchase $20 billion annually in 2025 and 2026.) The best-performing oil stock ExxonMobil is the undisputed leader in the oil sector, as evidenced by its industry-leading financial results in the second quarter. This allowed it to return more cash to investors than peers while maintaining the sector's top balance sheet. The oil giant isn't likely to give up its leadership position anytime soon. Its plan up to 2030 would see it deliver meaningful earnings and cash flow growth over the next few years, allowing it to continue returning lots of money to investors. That combination of growth and cash returns positions Exxon to continue delivering peer-leading total return, which it has done over the past five years with its impressive 25% compound annual total return. Should you invest $1,000 in ExxonMobil right now? Before you buy stock in ExxonMobil, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and ExxonMobil wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $624,823!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,064,820!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,019% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 178% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025
Japan Forward
3 hours ago
- Japan Forward
Do Not Open Japan-US Trade Deal to Distorted Interpretation
このページを 日本語 で読む A trade deal was concluded by the Shigeru Ishiba administration and the Donald Trump administration. But, were the provisions of the agreement actually finalized? It is difficult to dispel doubts on that score. There are stark differences in how the Japanese and US sides explain provisions on new investment in the United States. This is a cause for concern in the actual implementation of the agreement. One of the main pillars of the Japan-US agreement sets reciprocal tariffs and auto tariffs the US imposes on Japanese imports at 15%. However, no written agreement has been drawn up. Isn't that the cause of the differences in perception between the two sides? Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba should have spoken directly with President Trump immediately after the agreement was reached to share his views. His failure to do so has created a major problem. If things continue as they are, it is possible that the US side will try to force its own interpretation on Japan. If that were to happen, Japan's national interest might well suffer damage. The Prime Minister and Minister for Economic Revitalization Ryosei Akazawa should clarify the reasons for these differing perceptions during the extraordinary Diet session that convened on August 1. They have a duty to explain to the satisfaction of the Japanese people that the agreement will be appropriately implemented. US President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on July 31 (©Reuters via Kyodo) Regarding Japanese investment in the United States, Trump posted on social media that Japan will invest $550 billion USD (approximately ¥80 trillion JPY) in the United States. Furthermore, he said, the US will receive 90% of the profits. In response, the Japan side has explained that the $550 billion in question is actually the upper limit for investments, loans, and loan guarantees. Of this, the "90%" of the profits the US would stand to make from the deal are from investment projects. That amounts to just 1% to 2% of the $550 billion, according to Akazawa. As for the issue of rice, the US side claims that Japan's imports of American rice will increase by 75%. However, Japan has not provided any specific details. Won't this really amount to sacrificing Japan's agricultural sector? US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also declared that he intends to review Japan's compliance with the agreement quarterly. He has further threatened that tariffs will be raised to 25% if Trump is not satisfied. That would provide leeway for Trump to unilaterally scrap the agreement. The lack of a joint document sharing a mutual understanding of what the agreement entails has left a legacy of problems. The Japanese side prioritized an early conclusion to the talks. That allowed the delay of the time-consuming task of hammering out a written agreement. Their excuse was to avoid a situation where an agreement could not be reached by the Trump-imposed deadline of August 1. On that date, Trump's reciprocal tariffs on Japan were scheduled to rise to 25%. Even if that is true, it will end up counterproductive if the agreement comes to be distorted by the US interpretation. Above all, the Ishiba government should urge the Trump administration to quickly align their respective views. We should realize that, unless both sides share a mutual understanding, economic uncertainty from Trump's tariffs will not dissipate. Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun このページを 日本語 で読む
The Province
3 hours ago
- The Province
The two ways Trump's tariffs on Canada could collapse — despite his fight to keep them
The courts are considering whether they're even legal under U.S. law, and the American economy has yet to feel the pain of higher prices Dubbing it "Liberation Day," U.S. President Donald Trump announces his plan to enact sweeping new reciprocal tariffs worldwide, on April 2, 2025. Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images/File WASHINGTON, D.C. — Time's up. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump raised the tariff rate on Canadian goods not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) from 25 to 35 per cent, saying they 'have to pay a fair rate.' The White House claims it's because of Canada's failure to curb the 'ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs.' U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, however, show that fentanyl seizures from Canada make up less than 0.1 per cent of total U.S. seizures of the drug; most smuggling comes across the Mexican border. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors But the future of Trump's policy also rests on shaky ground, and the tariffs could come crashing down even if Canada can't reach a deal at some point. Imposed through a controversially declared 'national emergency' under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the tariffs come with essentially three paths for relief to Canadian exporters and their American customers: the courts and the economy. And there's always the wildcard: that the president changes his mind. Without relying on that, National Post looks at two very possible ways out of all this: The courts: There is a big question hanging over whether Trump's tariffs are even legal under the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress powers over trade. Trump has bypassed that by claiming he's using presidential IEEPA emergency powers. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. On Thursday, the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit Court of Appeals convened an en banc hearing for oral arguments in challenges to Trump's use of IEEPA. The 11 judges questioned whether the law meant for sanctioning adversaries or freezing assets during emergencies grants Trump the power to impose tariffs, with one judge noting, 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs.'' The White House, meanwhile, says the law grants the president 'broad and flexible' emergency powers, including the ability to regulate imports. 'Based on the tenor and questions of the arguments, it appears that the challengers have the better odds of prevailing,' Thomas Berry, the CATO Institute's director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, said in a statement. 'Several judges peppered the government's attorney with skeptical questions about why a broad term in IEEPA like 'regulate importation' should be read to allow the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.' Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump's lawyers claim his executive order provides the justifications for the tariffs — in Canada's case, fentanyl. But Berry said 'those justifications would not matter if IEEPA simply does not authorize tariffs in the first place. That is the cleanest and simplest way to resolve this case, and it appears that the Federal Circuit may be leaning toward that result.' A decision is expected this month, and if it's a resounding push back from the judges' panel, said Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst at Heritage Foundation, the Supreme Court may not even take up the case. If so, he says, 'these Liberation Day tariffs and everything that's been imposed under emergency legislation, IEEPA, that all evaporates.' At that point, the White House would not be able to declare across-the-board tariffs against countries. Instead, it would have to rely on laws allowing tariffs to be imposed on specific products that are found to threaten U.S. national security, like those currently imposed on Canadian steel and lumber. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The economy: The other path to tariff relief is through economic pressure. If Americans start to see higher prices and economic uncertainty, and push back at the ballot box — or threaten to do so — it could force Trump to reverse course. The most recent figures show that U.S. inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index, hit around 2.7 per cent in July. That's a slight rise, fuelled by rising prices for food, transportation and used cars. But it's still close to the Federal Reserve target of two per cent. U.S. unemployment rose slightly to 4.2 per cent in July, while far fewer jobs were created than expected, and consumer confidence rose two points but is still several points lower than it was in January. Overall, most economists agree that risks of a U.S. recession over the next 12 months are relatively low, but skepticism over growth remains high. 'Our outlook is for slower growth in the U.S., but no recession,' said Gus Faucher, chief economist of The PNC Financial Services Group. He notes that the 'tariffs are going to be a drag' because they are a tax increase on imports. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Economists have said price inflation from tariffs is not yet being felt in the U.S. but believe it's inevitable. 'Trump's tariff madness adds a great deal to the risks of a recession,' said Steven Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University who served on President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. 'With tariffs, Americans are going to be paying a big new beautiful sales tax on goods and services imported into the U.S., and taxes slow things down. Taxes don't stimulate.' It is surprising that higher U.S. prices haven't happened yet, said Jonathan Gruber, chairman of the economics department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But he explained that it's likely a reflection of the duration of contracts and the fact that import sellers haven't yet put up prices — 'because they were hoping it wouldn't be real, like they'd wake up from this nightmare.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'I think we start to see the effect on prices by the end of the year,' said Gruber. The trouble for Canada, however, is that the Canadian economy is starting from a much weaker position, with higher unemployment, lower consumer confidence, and a slowing GDP, on top of the trade tensions. So, trying to wait things out for the U.S. to feel the pinch will be even more painful for Canadians. And any American downturn will also reverberate north. 'As Uncle Sam goes, so goes Canada,' said Hanke. Gruber agrees with that, but with a caveat. 'It's all bad in the short run and good in the long run,' he says. He believes the U.S. is 'weak and getting weaker' and that Canada should start taking advantage of how the U.S. is making opportunities for other countries to invest in themselves. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'We're not investing in our future. We're killing our education. We're killing our research. We're not allowing in immigrants,' he said, explaining the weakening of the U.S. economy. 'We're basically setting the stage for long-run economic slower growth.' Meanwhile, China is doubling down on investment, research and other longer-term policies. 'Canada and other countries need to do the same,' Gruber said. And as for when a backlash could lead to a reversal in the U.S., Gruber points to two factors. 'It's got to be high inflation, and Trump's opponents need to make sure that the voters understand that's Trump's fault.' National Post tmoran@ Read More Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our newsletters here. News News Tennis Columnists Vancouver Canucks
