Should the Canadian Govt refuse the Nexen buyout by CNOOC?


View Poll Results: Nexen CNOOC Buyout
Reject the deal 3 75.00%
Accept the deal 1 25.00%
For a deal with strict ownership limits- as noted in OP 0 0%
Not sure 0 0%
Voters: 4. You may not vote on this poll

Goober
#1
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
#2
Whast sort of stake do the feds and provinces have in Nexen?
 
Goober
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Whast sort of stake do the feds and provinces have in Nexen?

Tell me as I do not know?
 
petros
#4
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
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

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

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/da...0910_13fhr.txt

3.2 Million shares....
 
Goober
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

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
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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/da...0910_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
+1
#10  Top Rated Post
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
#11
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
#12
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
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

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?

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

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?

Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

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
#15
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
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

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
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

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
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

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
#19
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
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

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.
 
Machjo
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

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.

So let the SCoC deal with it, as I'm sure they currently are.
 
taxslave
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

So let the SCoC deal with it, as I'm sure they currently are.

Which could take years. That does exactly what for workers that are forced to work for substandard wages under unsafe conditions in the meantime?
 
Machjo
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Which could take years. That does exactly what for workers that are forced to work for substandard wages under unsafe conditions in the meantime?

If the company is violating the rules, then certainly the courts would have authority to confiscate company assets to pay workers if necessary, no? Or maybe forge a proper extradition treaty with China before agreeing to allowing state-owned Chinese companies buying into Canada. This does not mean not letting them, but merely on the condition that extradition agreements are signed first to ensure that if these companies violate Canadian laws that we can enforce those laws effectively.

Another possibility might be to require these companies to invest X dollars in Canada as a minimum that cannot be removed from Canada until they sell their assets, so that in the event of a court case of this sort, there are assets to confiscate. Of course if they respect our laws and then sell off the company later, then they can take their security investment out too, but only then. A kind of security deposit of sorts.
 
taxslave
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

If the company is violating the rules, then certainly the courts would have authority to confiscate company assets to pay workers if necessary, no? Or maybe forge a proper extradition treaty with China before agreeing to allowing state-owned Chinese companies buying into Canada. This does not mean not letting them, but merely on the condition that extradition agreements are signed first to ensure that if these companies violate Canadian laws that we can enforce those laws effectively.

Another possibility might be to require these companies to invest X dollars in Canada as a minimum that cannot be removed from Canada until they sell their assets, so that in the event of a court case of this sort, there are assets to confiscate. Of course if they respect our laws and then sell off the company later, then they can take their security investment out too, but only then. A kind of security deposit of sorts.

Not when they claim diplomatic immunity.
We are talking about current events here, not some hypothetical future actions.
 
Machjo
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Not when they claim diplomatic immunity.
We are talking about current events here, not some hypothetical future actions.

Well, if we screwed up on that one, there is not much we can do about it now; we should learn from this mistake and introduce appropriate safeguards accordingly for future events.
 
Goober
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

If the company is violating the rules, then certainly the courts would have authority to confiscate company assets to pay workers if necessary, no? Or maybe forge a proper extradition treaty with China before agreeing to allowing state-owned Chinese companies buying into Canada. This does not mean not letting them, but merely on the condition that extradition agreements are signed first to ensure that if these companies violate Canadian laws that we can enforce those laws effectively.

Another possibility might be to require these companies to invest X dollars in Canada as a minimum that cannot be removed from Canada until they sell their assets, so that in the event of a court case of this sort, there are assets to confiscate. Of course if they respect our laws and then sell off the company later, then they can take their security investment out too, but only then. A kind of security deposit of sorts.

Till they meet all the standards, till they are only permitted thru all Chinese or affiliates to own a max percentage I would send them on their way.

Till they meet a number of standards why do we have to go chasing after them.
 
Machjo
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Till they meet all the standards, till they are only permitted thru all Chinese or affiliates to own a max percentage I would send them on their way.

Till they meet a number of standards why do we have to go chasing after them.

I agree about the chasing part. If they don't meet the same standards as Canadian companies then yes, send them on their way. That's not quite the same as saying we don't welcome them no matter what though.

If they want to invest, they do the leg work and meet our standards. If they do, welcome home. If not, have a nice trip back.

And of course we make it clear that state-owned or not, they'll all be treated the same.

Now one thing I could see would be democratizing corporations, or at least those with, let's say, 500 workers or more. Just like in Germany or Sweden, why not allow workers to elect 50% of the board of directors, with the tie-breaking vote going to the chairman, who would necessarily be elected by the owners. This way, workers have considerable say in how the company operates.

That said though, I would not agree with applying this to foreign companies only. What aplies to one applies to all. but that could be an additional measure to ensure grassroots influence.
 
captain morgan
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post


Now one thing I could see would be democratizing corporations, or at least those with, let's say, 500 workers or more. Just like in Germany or Sweden, why not allow workers to elect 50% of the board of directors, with the tie-breaking vote going to the chairman, who would necessarily be elected by the owners. This way, workers have considerable say in how the company operates.


You've mentioned this before... The Nexen employees can easily gain that power by purchasing shares in the company. At the AGM, you nominate and vote to install the Board of Directors... Gvt interference in this area is not only unnecessary, but will also act to scare-off institutional investors that may not like their money being controlled by individuals that have no risk in the deal.
 

Similar Threads

0
Kenney says Nexen takeover needs close scrutiny
by dumpthemonarchy | Sep 24th, 2012
1
CNOOC to buy $2.3 bln Nigeria oilfield stake
by I think not | Jan 9th, 2006
3
Canadian Radio Networks Refuse Farm Ads
by ejames | Jul 13th, 2005
no new posts