Further to my earlier post, the Canadian government agreed in 1994 to allow the formation of a continental economic zone when it signed NAFTA. Canada and the US agreed on limits which either government could place on exports. Either government can place export restrictions on the grounds of conservation of exhaustible resources, supply shortages, price stabilization, and national security. And both states agreed that their respective states or provinces would be bound by the rules of NAFTA, so that the province of Alberta cannot change the rules now applying.
Canada gave up its earlier right to preserve its energy for its own use (a 25 year reserve), and committed that the US would not be charged more for exported energy than Canadians would be charged (a level playing field for pricing). If Canada experienced an energy shortage, it also agreed not to favor itself, but to send the same proportion of its energy south to the USA even if this means Canadians run short.
So, what is the result of NAFTA? The Americans negotiated rights over Canada’s vast energy resources (including the massive oil sands deposits in Alberta) which give the USA far more rights over its neighbor’s assets than any other country has done in peacetime. In essence, Canada’s oil reserves in Alberta are as much America’s as they would be if they were located a few hundred miles south of the 49th parallel. The Mexicans negotiated a much better deal in 1994, with much more control retained over their energy resources.
This means the US has contractual rights to access the oil sands of Alberta much as it would have if it was indeed in its own backyard. Signed, sealed and delivered, by the Ottawa politicians in 1994.
The thrust of my argument therefore is valid: a major solution to America’s energy crisis lies in massive development of the oil sands in its backyard, Alberta. Some estimates are that these oil sands contain recoverable oil equal to 2/3rds of the deposits in Saudi Arabia. And costs to mine them have been driven down relentlessly, year over year. What a backyard! Can you imagine how much oil would be flowing south to America from its “northern backyard” if a decade ago the President had ordered the development of the Alberta oil sands as a strategic defense initiative, and billions of dollars had been invested in training and construction?
instead of actually responding to the comments in your first diary and presenting this “contractual” argument you decide to post another diary with a bullshit title that insults the many Canadians on this board, even after having that pointed out to you. Beautiful.
Listen CKTC, NAFTA is fully revocable and if ‘opinions’ like yours continue to be pushed to the forefront don’t for a second think the soveriegn nation of Canada will not cancel that agreement in a New York minute… in fact, I think I might just spread your little posts around the Canadian blogosphere, conservative and liberal alike and see how many Canadians will like what you have to say… maybe push the cancellation along a bit by making it an even bigger election issue, since it’s a thorn in Paul Martin, Giles Duceppe and Jack Layton’s sides lately… question… do you know who they are?
Oh, and you kinda left out the fact that the US is not living up to their end of the contractual obligation (heard of softwood lumber?) and that is something that our politicians are NOT letting die, contrary to the wishes of jingoistic Americans such as yourself. We want our $5 billion back and then we can talk about you helping yourselves to our oil… well, if China doesn’t get it first while your gov’t refuses to abide by the numerous rulings against them in the arbitration/ NAFTA courts.
Get a clue & perhaps learn something about the politics of your neighbours before you go spouting off.
Is the corp you work for – DE Shaw (www.shaw.com) looking for investment opportunities (or does your company already own stock in US companies who are capable of extracting oil from the Alberta sands?) & is that why you’re floating this trial balloon to see if “progressives” will buy into the idea that the US “owns” Canada, or are you acting on your own volition?
Kinda strange that your listed email addy is the general mailbox for shaw.com dontcha think?
Curious indeed.
For a minute there I thought you were referring to the Shaw Group, a major engineering firm, but apparently this Shaw is an investment firm.
Had it been the Shaw Group it would have been even more interesting, as two of their major market areas are (from their website):
They can help Alberta make the mess, and then help clean it up! As Yakov Smirnov said, “What a country!”
That was my first thought when I saw the email addy too… but it was this part of their website that made me think… hmmm… I wonder if they are diversifying into other kinds of emerging technologies:
Mind bogglingly arrogant.
By all means let us drive away our former friends and abuse our neighbors! We’re number ONE!
We don’t even get to the part where we notice increasing the carbon-load in the atmosphere is a bad idea . . .
Thanks for the interesting comments.
Some seem to have missed my point: increasing oil production from the Alberta deposits offers both Canada and the US an unparalled opportunity to achieve mutually beneficial objectives. I do not see this as a zero-sum result, but as a win-win result.
What will Canada gain? A substantial increase in its manufacturing base, and its major exports. It would add to its economic drivers (exports of food and autos), the export of oil to a creditworthy customer. Canada would be able to build up a new corps of trained workers (in the oil, manufacturing, housing and finance industries), whose skills would benefit the country for years to come. Given the US’s almost insatiable appetite for oil/energy, Canada would be able to build a huge industry around its Alberta base, aimed at meeting some of that demand, through displacing even more of the supply from the relatively precarious Middle East sources.
And what would America gain? A steady supply of oil from a stable and democratic country. Given its current dangerous dependence on fossil fuels, this is an insurance policy of incalculable benefit for Americans. I struggle to understand why it enjoys such a low priority in public discourse, in Democratic and Republican party platforms, and in this oil-supporting Administration.
America’s access to such an energy source in Alberta has been contracted for under NAFTA; a fact of life. Should any Prime Minister of Canada show unusual courage and table the termination of NAFTA (something I doubt any of the current crop of aspirants would do, given their track records with respect to the US), then the US, Mexico and Canada could start new negotiations. But until that unlikely event happens, a deal is a deal is a deal, and Canada’s energy resources are contractually linked to America’s use given the contents of the NAFTA deal.
Is that so bad? Only if you neglect to consider the massive win-win possibilities of Canada becoming the most significant nation supporting America’s economic juggernaut.