Alberta Strip Mining destroying province

[Tonington]

Toro, you're definitely who I expected to correct any over stepping by that statement, I can't remeber who I heard it from, but I believe he owned a company that is involved with some aspect of the pipelines.

I think this is the part of the agreement he may have been referring to:
A Party may maintain or introduce a restriction otherwise
justified under the provisions of Articles XI:2(a) and XX(g), (i)
and (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of an energy or
basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, only
if:

(a) the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the
total export shipments of a specific energy or basic
petrochemical good made available to such other Party
relative to the total supply of that good of the Party
maintaining the restriction as compared to the
proportion prevailing in the most recent 36-month
period for which data are available prior to the
imposition of the measure, or in such other
representative period on which the Parties involved may
agree;

 

[Tonington]

Of course environmental damage should be minimized. But one shouldn't be so off-handish about wealth. There is no guarantee that simply because Canada is rich today it will be so tomorrow. History is littered with example after example of nations that were once rich that are no longer. And given a choice between living in a rich place versus a poor one, I'd reckon 99.9999% of the world would choose the former.

There are roughly 350,000,000,000 barrels of oil equivalent in the oil sands. At $50 per barrel, thats $17,500,000,000,000 - that's trillion with a "t" - or roughly 17x the size of the entire Canadian economy.

That is frickin' massive!

So let's not allow a few bugs and trees stand in the way of this enormous resource. We can keep the other 98% of Canada pristine.

I'm all for improved economic outlooks. That figure would probably be much larger if the tar sands can't offset the lack of conventional oil in regards to the global need?

 

[Toro]

Toro, you're definitely who I expected to correct any over stepping by that statement, I can't remeber who I heard it from, but I believe he owned a company that is involved with some aspect of the pipelines.

I think this is the part of the agreement he may have been referring to:
A Party may maintain or introduce a restriction otherjustified under the provisions of Articles XI:2(a) and XX(g), (i)
and (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of an energy or
basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, only
if:

(a) the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the
total export shipments of a specific energy or basic
petrochemical good made available to such other Party
relative to the total supply of that good of the Party
maintaining the restriction as compared to the
proportion prevailing in the most recent 36-month
period for which data are available prior to the
imposition of the measure, or in such other
representative period on which the Parties involved may
agree;

The proportion of energy exports can be restricted if Canada chooses to restrict exports.

So, for example, let's say that we are exporting, roughly 200 million barrels of oil a year to the states, and our reserves are 200 billion barrels. That means the proportion of exports is 0.1% of reserves. Now let's say we wake up one day and find that all the engineers are wrong and Juan is right. Instead of 200 billion barrels, we have 200 million barrels. If Canada chooses to restrict exports, then the volume of exports Canada must sell is 200,000, since that is 0.1% of reserves. So the total voume that would be sold to the US under NAFTA could fall dramatically.

Also note that this only matters if the government of Canada chooses to restrict exports. If demand from Canada increases and demand from the US decreases, then there is absolutely nothing in NAFTA that restricts simple market mechanisms. Only government actions are restricted.

 

[Tonington]

So the tar sands fellas would just be competing to purchase the natural gas we have here, and the companies down south would be SOL?

 

[Tonington]

On a similar matter is this type of regulation also applied to lumber exports?

 

[Toro]

So the tar sands fellas would just be competing to purchase the natural gas we have here, and the companies down south would be SOL?

Its not all or nothing, of course, but its about supply and demand.

On a similar matter is this type of regulation also applied to lumber exports?

No.

 

[Toro]

I'm all for improved economic outlooks. That figure would probably be much larger if the tar sands can't offset the lack of conventional oil in regards to the global need?

Yes.

 

[I think not]

On a similar matter is this type of regulation also applied to lumber exports?

Softwood lumber was excluded from NAFTA.