Should the Canadian Govt refuse the Nexen buyout by CNOOC?

Nexen CNOOC Buyout

  • Reject the deal

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • Accept the deal

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • For a deal with strict ownership limits- as noted in OP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Should the Canadian Govt refuse the Nexen buyout by CNOOC?
Petronas deal scuttled- The precedent is set – same with Potash Corp- Retain ownership of our resources.

Consider that China does not offer any where near the same playing fields for Non Chinese companies
The Chinese are experts at delaying other Non Chinese companies that compete in China against Chinese Companies.
Point- approx 10 years ago oil production- 80 % was controlled by vaious Govts. From what I undertsand now that number has increased to 90 %-
Our Natural resources are a Strategic Resource –Should it Controlled by Other States -

CNOOC, Nexen deal: Will Ottawa take China at its word on takeover? | Energy | News | Financial Post

Why CNOOC’s Nexen acquisition should be nixed | Diane Francis | Financial Post

There are also two policy reasons to stop the global spree here.
1. Reciprocity. No entities from a foreign country should be allowed to do anything in Canada that Canadians cannot do in their country. In China’s case, this means only greenfields, or startups, can be invested in here and then with strict licensing from the government as is the case in China when building anything. No Chinese can buy stock on the TMX or own shares of a Canadian company, as is the case there unless special government permission is granted. Same applies to real estate.
2. State-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds from all countries must be banned from owning any corporations, real estate or resources in Canada. This is because they are agents of foreign jurisdictions and enjoy sovereign immunity.
Sinopec, for instance, has refused to appear in a Canadian court concerning dozens of outstanding charges against the company involving construction site malpractice that led to the deaths of two workers and injuries to four more in 2007 in Alberta. And this winter a Sinopec official said the company wants the Supreme Court of Canada to exempt it from such health and safety actions.
Once Nexen is nixed, the government of Canada should require full and timely disclosure of future foreign investment activities. Any ownership level beyond 5% should be disclosed quarterly and published immediately.

Nexen CNOOC Deal: Poll Finds 8 In 10 Don't Want Foreign Governments Owning Canadian Resources
8 in 10 Canadians against the deal

Nexen deal: Canada should be open for business, but not at any cost | Diane Francis | Financial Post

Canadians should be upset and insulted that China’s biggest grab for control of a major resource company anywhere in the world is the $15-billion Nexen deal. Clearly, China is testing whether this Boy Scout of a nation will roll over.
This is just one of many reasons why Canada must reject this takeover. Another is a warning by CSIS against foreign buyouts of strategic assets, and another is that polls show public opposition to the deal.
One compromise that’s been suggested is that the Nexen deal goes ahead but no more. That’s crazy. Canadians have no obligation to feed China’s appetite for resources just because it invited itself to dinner.
In addition, Canada has no obligation to Nexen shareholders, directors and management because they knew, or should have known, foreign transactions are always at the pleasure of Canadian governments.

Some common sense restrictions on any State Company buying our Natural Resources


1. The Chinese must be told this transaction is premature given that negotiations between Canada and China have just been announced to deepen the trading relationship and outline rules of engagement. This process will take years.
2. The buyer, CNOOC, should be told that it cannot buy control, but can own up to 20% of Nexen if it wishes. Foreigners taking small positions in transparent, Canadian-based public companies are not a problem.
3. The Chinese should be told the deal is premature because Canadians must have a national conversation about this. A Parliamentary committee, proposed by independent MP Peter Goldring, is a good idea and would study all the ramifications, and potential pitfalls, of allowing state-owned enterprises to invest and operate within Canada. Nexen will be studied as will Sinopec and the workplace accident that took place in Alberta three years ago and other cases.

This is why the collective holdings of China Inc.’s entities must be taken into consideration when determining whether a company has been taken over by a foreign entity. If five Chinese entities each own 20% of Syncrude that amounts to de facto control.
Similar concerns would be raised if Rosneft, Gazprom and other oligarchs, with licenses to operate from the Kremlin, were to collectively launch a buying spree in Canada. The same applies to companies like TAQA of Abu Dhabi and others who are ready to pounce here.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,301
11,386
113
Low Earth Orbit
CPP owns some for sure. I can only assume SK Pension still owns a chunk as well as other provinces.

It's where old politicians go to die so It has to have plenty of public ownership.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
CPP owns some for sure. I can only assume SK Pension still owns a chunk as well as other provinces.

It's where old politicians go to die so It has to have plenty of public ownership.

Ownership as I mentioned by States to be controlled- These are strategic resources.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,301
11,386
113
Low Earth Orbit

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Do you know what made potash a "strategic resource"? With simple chem you can make things go boom and rockets go fast and far with potash.

And it makes food grow- fertilizer - a strategic resource- With the ongoing changes in weather patterns, poor soil- expanding cities using prime farmland - countries will need more fertilizers as the income levels rise. it becomes more of a strategic resource as time passes.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,301
11,386
113
Low Earth Orbit
And it makes food grow- fertilizer - a strategic resource- With the ongoing changes in weather patterns, poor soil- expanding cities using prime farmland - countries will need more fertilizers as the income levels rise. it becomes more of a strategic resource as time passes.
After the fertilizer is made what's left over? ;) For fertilizer use, we'll never run out.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Do you know what made potash a "strategic resource"? With simple chem you can make things go boom and rockets go fast and far with potash.

CPP's portion of Nexen ownership is....

NEXEN INC COM Common Stock 65334H102 $ 54,176.86 (X1000) 3,203,631 Shares

Found here: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1283718/000114420412044099/v320910_13fhr.txt

3.2 Million shares....

And these companies take direction from their Govt - Their interests are not what we would see from publicly traded companies - best return -

I also recall an incident in Alberta where Chinese workers died - have not found the link but from what i understand CNOOC is using a different defense that is not afforded to publicly traded corps.

They also underpaid workers- yet could not locate them when ordered to pay them back wages. Cannot find hundreds of Chinese workers that went thru a number of checks - and they are back in China and Oops - No one can find them.
Really.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
It doesn't matter whether or not it is China or some other foreign nation taking over another important Canadain company. What matters is that it it will be another example of a continually growing foreign presence in Canada. It is about time Canada held on to a few of the major players in the development of its resources. Canada already allows a larger foreign presence in its economy than any other nation in the G20. It might be a good idea if this trend was halted.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Quite frankly yes. The problem is the current government has made such a big deal
making treaties with some of the most evil people on the planet and now they are in
a box because they invited them to invest and now they have to say no.
I don't think these characters should be allowed to invest in any of our resource industries.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I said accept the deal. But also, we need to sell Crown resources at a much higher price too, but that's a separate matter having nothing to do with who owns the exploitation company.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I said accept the deal. But also, we need to sell Crown resources at a much higher price too, but that's a separate matter having nothing to do with who owns the exploitation company.

As I mentioned in the OP- these are Strategic Resources- approx 90 5 of Oil is controlled by states - So this is a long term multi-generational strategic resource- While oil is on the uprtick for recovery - The fields in the Us for example- most are in hard to get areas.
Leaves little room for companies to invest in countries that have the rule of law and not expropriate as they are doing in South America.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
As I mentioned in the OP- these are Strategic Resources- approx 90 5 of Oil is controlled by states - So this is a long term multi-generational strategic resource- While oil is on the uprtick for recovery - The fields in the Us for example- most are in hard to get areas.
Leaves little room for companies to invest in countries that have the rule of law and not expropriate as they are doing in South America.

Yes, but still on our soil and still within our jurisdiction. That chinese company must still abide by Canadian laws and is still subject to the price the Crown states for Cron resources.

Can you give me a practical example of where this could be a strategic risk?

And these companies take direction from their Govt - Their interests are not what we would see from publicly traded companies - best return -

I also recall an incident in Alberta where Chinese workers died - have not found the link but from what i understand CNOOC is using a different defense that is not afforded to publicly traded corps.

They also underpaid workers- yet could not locate them when ordered to pay them back wages. Cannot find hundreds of Chinese workers that went thru a number of checks - and they are back in China and Oops - No one can find them.
Really.

Of course it should be subjected to the same laws as other companies. If they're breaking any laws, then prosecute. No one is suggesting they be subject to different laws, or are they?

It doesn't matter whether or not it is China or some other foreign nation taking over another important Canadain company. What matters is that it it will be another example of a continually growing foreign presence in Canada. It is about time Canada held on to a few of the major players in the development of its resources. Canada already allows a larger foreign presence in its economy than any other nation in the G20. It might be a good idea if this trend was halted.

If provinces insisted on selling Crown resources at a higher price, then regardless who owns the companies, they'd still be providing the government with more revenue. The resources are still on Crown lands and so the Crown is free to set the price. Nothing changes there. And the companies, foreign-owned or not, are still not above Canadian law.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
I was reading an article recently that claimed that some state owned companies are attempting to circumvent Canadian labour and safety regulations by claiming what amounts to diplomatic immunity.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I was reading an article recently that claimed that some state owned companies are attempting to circumvent Canadian labour and safety regulations by claiming what amounts to diplomatic immunity.

From what I recall that was the Chinese company that had workers killed on an AB project- They violated labor laws and safety as well- Workers were underpaid- company was ordered to pay the employees - they claim they cannot locate any of these employees- Also hear on the case where the workers were killed they are appealing to the SCoC.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I was reading an article recently that claimed that some state owned companies are attempting to circumvent Canadian labour and safety regulations by claiming what amounts to diplomatic immunity.

That's a whole different matter. If a foreign state-owned company wants to invest in Canada, I have no issue with that on the condition that it be recognized as a commercial and not diplomatic venture and thus completely compliant to Canadian laws, no diplomatic loopholes being applicable. And we should make that clear from the outset.

State-owned or not, all commercial enterprises on Canadian soil ought to be fully compliant to Canadian laws like any domestic company, no diplomatic immunity for economic activity.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
That's a whole different matter. If a foreign state-owned company wants to invest in Canada, I have no issue with that on the condition that it be recognized as a commercial and not diplomatic venture and thus completely compliant to Canadian laws, no diplomatic loopholes being applicable. And we should make that clear from the outset.

State-owned or not, all commercial enterprises on Canadian soil ought to be fully compliant to Canadian laws like any domestic company, no diplomatic immunity for economic activity.

See Goober's post above.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
If a foreign-state-owned company violates Canadian labour or safety regulations, and we respond as we would any domestic company, and the foreign state intervenes diplomatically, then we stand firm, ignore their pleas, and end of story.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
That's a whole different matter. If a foreign state-owned company wants to invest in Canada, I have no issue with that on the condition that it be recognized as a commercial and not diplomatic venture and thus completely compliant to Canadian laws, no diplomatic loopholes being applicable. And we should make that clear from the outset.

State-owned or not, all commercial enterprises on Canadian soil ought to be fully compliant to Canadian laws like any domestic company, no diplomatic immunity for economic activity.

Would you agree that CNOOC and Huawei - are controlled by the Chines Govt- and follow their direction.