Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Talk

[Colin]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

Is it wrong to want to get rich? I personally wish I was rich, but History majors don't tend to roll in the dough.

 

[Jay]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

As I've said before...the Ontario government had to threaten the L.C.B.O. that it would privatize them if they didn't start turning a profit; the government can't sell booze at a profit.

That's just amazing. I used to sell imported beer for a living to the LCBO. We'd wholesale a flat of cans for $4.20 and they'd retail it at $28, nearly double what the retail price was in the States for the exact same product. Of course, the government skimmed off a lot. I seem to recall their take through taxes being something like $800 million, though I could be wrong.

Ya, they like to refer to it as a "sin" tax.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Medi

Is it wrong to want to get rich? I personally wish I was rich, but History majors don't tend to roll in the dough.

Try rewriting history...I hear it pays well....

 

[Karlin]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

Didn't the government used to run Petro Canada?

Yes. I think the Canadian government sold the rest of its shares a few years ago.

But PetroCan was one of many oil companies in Canada. Trudeau set it up in the 1970s so the Canadian government could have eyes and ears into the industry. It turned into a fat-bloated crown corporation. Its doing fairly well now since they got an American to run it. :wink:

\
Thats right, it got to be valuable, and then it was sold. Thats good business I suppose, but just when PetroCan was about to become very usefull to the"HYDROGEN as fuel" movement, it was sold.
Also, Canada could have raked in profits for many years, but instead went for immediate gratification and sold it for a one-time profit.

That one missing step of putting up hydrogen re-fueling stations across the country would have been demanded of PetroCan, if we could look at it like it was an arm of the government. I realise it was being run like a normal business, but it could have been that stepping stone if they wanted it to be.That was the obvious solution...

----------
I have to mention that hydrogen can be produced in large efficient plants , using natural gas as feedstock or as energy to make H from H2O. DONE THAT WAY, THERE IS LESS POLLUTION, and GREATER EFFICIENY than when we burn CRUDE in vehicles.

"Processing losses" would more than be made up that way, but that means looking at energy as a "whole package" - how we use the fossil fuels overall. As it is, capitalism demands its all in little pieces {this company has that oil and those profits} - it can't be 'accounted for' any other way. Its about ownership, private acounts, individual wealth.

----

As a "philosopically socially inclined person" [don't call me "left"] , I see energy as a whole, to be managed carefully. Due to the global warming, pollution, and the fact that everybody uses it, it really isn't an individual, private matter. If there were an option to separte myself from your pollution, and if I had a choice to go solar or some alternative, and if the severe weather , for eg., from the tar sands was contained to the tar sands, it would be okay.

When "your operations" are spilling into my backyard, it becomes everyones concern, yet we pretend its all private just because they want privatisation so that the problems won't come back to individuals, their accounts are safely tucked away, separte from the operations.

Bah, humjob

 

[PoisonPete2]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Of course, if you want to buy everything, i.e. nationalize it, you'll have to pay a premium.
What's the argument for nationalizing now?[/quote]

When the USSR fell, their oil patch was divided among politically connected 'private' interests. When Afghanistan was 'liberated' political power was handed over to an oil executive. The Iraqi oil reserve is currently being stolen by corporate pirates without benefitting the People. In Venezuala, Chevas nationalized the oil industry, he did not buy it, he just collects 51% of its value on export. Canada should nationalize the oil. It is our oil. International corporations did not buy our oil reserves. They pay back chump change in royalties. Our natural resources should primarily benifit Canadians. We should also reclaim our lumber. Foreign corporations strip our forests for very low stumpage fees.

 

[Toro]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Brilliant idea. And who are the biggest shareholders of Canadian oil companies? Canadians! Canadian pension funds, Canadian insurance funds. Canadian mutual funds. So let's steal the savings of hard-working Canadians to benefit..."Canadians"! Not only that, but you would get to watch the loonie go below 50 cents and interest rates go to 15-20% overnight. Capital loves expropriation. People love it when you steal their savings. Hope you have a good explanation for grandma when her RRSP has been cut in half.

BTW, Canada is NOT the imploding USSR, the failed-state Afghanistan, the corrupt and brutal Iraq, nor even the second-world Venezuela. To equate those countries with Canada is like comparing a ferrari with a bicycle.

 

[Jay]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

"BTW, Canada is NOT the imploding USSR, the failed-state Afghanistan, the corrupt and brutal Iraq, nor even the second-world Venezuela. To equate those countries with Canada is like comparing a ferrari with a bicycle."

:cheers: :canada:

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Of course, if you want to buy everything, i.e. nationalize it, you'll have to pay a premium.
What's the argument for nationalizing now?

When the USSR fell, their oil patch was divided among politically connected 'private' interests. When Afghanistan was 'liberated' political power was handed over to an oil executive. The Iraqi oil reserve is currently being stolen by corporate pirates without benefitting the People. In Venezuala, Chevas nationalized the oil industry, he did not buy it, he just collects 51% of its value on export. Canada should nationalize the oil. It is our oil. International corporations did not buy our oil reserves. They pay back chump change in royalties. Our natural resources should primarily benifit Canadians. We should also reclaim our lumber. Foreign corporations strip our forests for very low stumpage fees.[/quote]

REPLY:
Oh hell, while we are at it, lets just put up a great big damn fence around the country and resign from the world. God, protectionists are so naive and ill informed.

 

[PoisonPete2]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

I love it that the responses are from the virulant 'right-wingers'. Canadians are NOT the majority shareholders in the Canadian oil patch. In the 1920's the U.S. government started to build up an oil reserve to protect them, not from fluctuating markets, but from foreign control of oil. We have no similar program in Canada and we definately should have it. NAFTA gives the U.S. access to our resources but gives us no right to their reserve.

 

[Toro]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

What are you talking about? The vast majority of reserves in Canada are owned by Canadian companies such as Encana, Petro-Can, Canadian Natural Resources, etc, and the shareholder base of those companies is primarily Canadian. What build-up of American reserves are you speaking of, the Stratetic Petroleum Reserve? The SPR started up after the Oil Embargo of the 1970s. And your comment about NAFTA is incorrect. Canadian companies are free to invest in US energy reserves. What is says is that neither country can cut each other off.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

What NAFTA says, Toro, is we cannot reduce exports to the US even in times of shortage unles we reduce domestic consumption by the same amount.

As for investing in US reserves...what reserves? They reached peak oil in the 1970's.

You and yours are selling our country to the lowest bidder for your own myopic and avaricious ends. Go ahead and say anything though, then wander off to your greed orgy.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

What NAFTA says, Toro, is we cannot reduce exports to the US even in times of shortage unles we reduce domestic consumption by the same amount.

As for investing in US reserves...what reserves? They reached peak oil in the 1970's.

You and yours are selling our country to the lowest bidder for your own myopic and avaricious ends. Go ahead and say anything though, then wander off to your greed orgy.

Might I suggest that you actually read all the free trade agreement before making asinine comments like that. Tell me, what would we do with the oil and gas if we did not sell it? Keep it stored somewhere? And if it is not going to be sold, who would extract it? Oh I know, the government would use more tax money to do it, instead of letting private enterprise do it.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

What NAFTA says, Toro, is we cannot reduce exports to the US even in times of shortage unles we reduce domestic consumption by the same amount.

That is wrong. This is what it says;

Article 605: Other Export Measures

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;

http://www-tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/Nafta/06.energy

I know the Left wants to scare people with misinformation like they always do, but what the agreement says is that if one party imposes restrictions on energy exports, then that party cannot decrease the proporation relative to the supply over the past 3 years. In other words, if supply is falling, the party applying the restriction must maintain the proportion of exports relative to supply. So if Canada has 10 billion barrels of reserves, and is exporting 50 million barrells to the US per year, then Canada must maintain 0.5% of its supply as exports if Canada imposes restrictions. Thus, if Canada were to wake up and find they had 1 billion instead of 10 billion, then Canada would have to maintain exports of 0.5%, or 5 million barrels of oil. That's what it says. It says nothing about restricting exports based on consumption. What it says about consumption is the following paragraph

(b)the Party does not impose a higher price for exports of
an energy or basic petrochemical good to such other
Party than the price charged for such energy good when
consumed domestically, by means of any measure such as
licenses, fees, taxation and minimum price
requirements.

Or, in other words, if your going to jack up taxes on fuel, you can't do it just on exports to the US. You also have to apply the same tax in Canada.

As for investing in US reserves...what reserves? They reached peak oil in the 1970's.

:?: Are you saying the US has no reserves. Excluding the tar sands, which aren't currently viable if oil falls below $35-$40, the US has more reserves than Canada. Canada has 179 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Excluding the tar sands, it has 9 billion barrels. The United States has 22 billion barrells of proven oil reserves. Maybe you haven't been paying attention but CNOOC is taking a run at Unocal, so apparently someone foreign thinks there are sizeable enough oil reserves in the US.

You and yours are selling our country to the lowest bidder for your own myopic and avaricious ends. Go ahead and say anything though, then wander off to your greed orgy.

That's hilarious.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

What NAFTA says, Toro, is we cannot reduce exports to the US even in times of shortage unles we reduce domestic consumption by the same amount.

That is wrong. This is what it says;

Article 605: Other Export Measures

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;

http://www-tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/Nafta/06.energy

I know the Left wants to scare people with misinformation like they always do, but what the agreement says is that if one party imposes restrictions on energy exports, then that party cannot decrease the proporation relative to the supply over the past 3 years. In other words, if supply is falling, the party applying the restriction must maintain the proportion of exports relative to supply. So if Canada has 10 billion barrels of reserves, and is exporting 50 million barrells to the US per year, then Canada must maintain 0.5% of its supply as exports if Canada imposes restrictions. Thus, if Canada were to wake up and find they had 1 billion instead of 10 billion, then Canada would have to maintain exports of 0.5%, or 5 million barrels of oil. That's what it says. It says nothing about restricting exports based on consumption. What it says about consumption is the following paragraph

(b)the Party does not impose a higher price for exports of
an energy or basic petrochemical good to such other
Party than the price charged for such energy good when
consumed domestically, by means of any measure such as
licenses, fees, taxation and minimum price
requirements.

Or, in other words, if your going to jack up taxes on fuel, you can't do it just on exports to the US. You also have to apply the same tax in Canada.

As for investing in US reserves...what reserves? They reached peak oil in the 1970's.

:?: Are you saying the US has no reserves. Excluding the tar sands, which aren't currently viable if oil falls below $35-$40, the US has more reserves than Canada. Canada has 179 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Excluding the tar sands, it has 9 billion barrels. The United States has 22 billion barrells of proven oil reserves. Maybe you haven't been paying attention but CNOOC is taking a run at Unocal, so apparently someone foreign thinks there are sizeable enough oil reserves in the US.

You and yours are selling our country to the lowest bidder for your own myopic and avaricious ends. Go ahead and say anything though, then wander off to your greed orgy.

That's hilarious.

Excellent points, only bad thing is you saved Blair from having to look it up himself. Thanks for the real truth, not opinionated truth.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Actually they aren't excellent points because, as Toro knows full well, trade experts from both countries have agreed that the agreement, through favoured nation status, guarantees energy to the US as if it were Canada. Mexico opted out of that part of the agreement because they knew how harmful it was. Trying to evade that little bit of reality is just another way that the anti-Canadians like to spread untruth.

Trying to ignore or downplay Canada's reserves in the oil fields is another little trick they like to try..."Oh, that part doesn't count because it's inconvenient." We have 179 billion barrels and the US only has 22 billion barrels, so Toro tries to hide 170 billion barrels through parsing words.

He also never addressed the fact that the US reached peak oil in the 1970's. Those who support the oligarchy of neo-conservatism don't like to talk about peak oil.

The exclusion of an export tax is a brutal piece of chicanery that could only be thought up by corporatist greed heads. It limits our options when it comes to trade disputes. Our energy supplies are basically like holding all of the aces. NAFTA neatly keeps us from playing those aces though.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Actually they aren't excellent points because, as Toro knows full well, trade experts from both countries have agreed that the agreement, through favoured nation status, guarantees energy to the US as if it were Canada. Mexico opted out of that part of the agreement because they knew how harmful it was. Trying to evade that little bit of reality is just another way that the anti-Canadians like to spread untruth.

Trying to ignore or downplay Canada's reserves in the oil fields is another little trick they like to try..."Oh, that part doesn't count because it's inconvenient." We have 179 billion barrels and the US only has 22 billion barrels, so Toro tries to hide 170 billion barrels through parsing words.

He also never addressed the fact that the US reached peak oil in the 1970's. Those who support the oligarchy of neo-conservatism don't like to talk about peak oil.

The exclusion of an export tax is a brutal piece of chicanery that could only be thought up by corporatist greed heads. It limits our options when it comes to trade disputes. Our energy supplies are basically like holding all of the aces. NAFTA neatly keeps us from playing those aces though.

As previously noted, opinions by Blair not necessarily (or ever) facts. Simply opinions, take them with a grain of salt. Real facts tend to get in the way of opinionated arguments, as was proven by Toros factual post of the agreement.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Except that, as I pointed out, his opinion is not supported by the opinions of many trade experts in Canada and the US. It is certainly not supported by the opinions of experts in Mexico, who refused to make energy part of the deal.

Nice try though, Blue. Found those 170 billion barrels that Toro misplaced yet? Here's a hint...try looking around Fort McMurray.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Except that, as I pointed out, his opinion is not supported by the opinions of many trade experts in Canada and the US. It is certainly not supported by the opinions of experts in Mexico, who refused to make energy part of the deal.

Nice try though, Blue. Found those 170 billion barrels that Toro misplaced yet? Here's a hint...try looking around Fort McMurray.

Whose experts, those who support your opinion? There are others, you know, or maybe you do not know.

Fort Mac is okay all on its own. Bet you wish you had resources like this in Manitoba, then you could be a have province too. Oh well, maybe next time around.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Experts who have looked at the plan and the legalities involved, Blue. It was one of the American negotiators of the original FTA that said, "The Canadians have no idea what they've signed." Apparently some of you prefer to remain in the dark.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

As previously noted, opinions by Blair not necessarily (or ever) facts. Simply opinions, take them with a grain of salt. Real facts tend to get in the way of opinionated arguments, as was proven by Toros factual post of the agreement.

Yeah...good job refuting the Rev there blue...

Keep up the good work...