[EnviroEngr]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hree cheers for the ankle-grabbing ceremony we all partook of during the Clinton years!

[rogerhb]

Does Canada have to accept US$ for the oil or could it demand payment in any other currency or gold?

[Whitecrab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Whitecrab', '-')I read somewhere, but I can't recall, that Canada can only reduce it's exports to the States if we reduce our own useage. But doesnt' that mean, once we realize oil and gas have peaked, it's doubly useful to cut our own consumption? (Every cubic foot we trim saves us two, in a sense).

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to chapter 6 of NAFTA, Canada has to export the same proportion of it's oil and gas as it has in the last 3 years: aka 60% of our gas to the US, even if our own people are freezing to death. Since our new prime-minister Martin is a very pro-trade, pro-NAFTA, "markets will solve it" kinda guy, things could get ugly...

[Canuck]

As a Canadian, I don't think this is a terrible thing. I think we should acknowledge the fact that as far as energy is concerned, the border is a line on the map. We're in the same boat, on the same pipeline grid, and on the same power grid. Our economy stands or falls on the American economy. It isn't in our interest to starve the American economy of power. It never will be.

That doesn't mean we can't have a sensible and independent energy policy. In fact in a sense it encourages it.

For example, we can decide we aren't interested in coalbed methane development. We would bear 100% of the environmental cost and pay 100% of the energy required to dig out the gas for 40% of the product? It is surely a sink for us.

The tar sands is another example. We have to clean the sand out of the tar using natural gas from our end of the treaty, yet the Americans have claim to 60% of the product made with our share of the gas. Shut it down, I say, and use the gas. We get more energy.

It also makes investment in alternate energy more attractive to us because we aren't committed to selling it.

[nero]

We aren't committed to selling any amount to the united states. All it says is we aren't allowed to discriminate against them

[Guest]

Canada should alternatively simply unilaterally withdraw from the treaty if things change and its in its own economic/energy interests to do so.

[azreal60]

Although I could be wrong, I believe that the worst that could possibly happen from canada's point of view is they have to survive 6 months of crappy energy prices.

If any member of nafta wants to withdraw, all they have to do is give 6 months notice and they are free and clear out of it. Its that simple. If someone feels they need out, they can get out.

[MarkB]

MrPC, yes I don't trust that FTA spin as far as it could be thrown.

But I can see how it's possible for the US to jump on Australian natural gas in any great way. I have read that the US would need 14 natural gas ship deliveries a day to cover her needs. There's simply no global fleet in existance to do that. And by the time the US gets that desperate to create these ships, Aussie natural gas just won't be in the volumes to sustain it. I think the US would only do this for Middle East and Russian gas (if at all?).

Yes, the US will seek more Aussie yellow cake, that's a given (since we have the world's greatest reserves). But I don't see the US screaming for our coal. They have plenty of that themselves. After all it would be cheaper for the Americans to mine their own than the energy/cost of imports from far away.

[Matrim]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne good thing for Canada though is that the oil sands are going to be huge ( they already are, but they are going to get huger)

[Ender]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrPC', '
')Why else would the US enter into negotiations with small and insignificant economies when the local political pressure is to jack up industry and agricultural protection, if there was not a hidden jackpot in the fine print to be pulled out later on?

[Keith_McClary]

There is this US bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D ... dsNOz:@@@D
The above link doesn' t seem to work, try clicking "H.R. 2337" on thes page:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R ... um--Alaska)
Alaskan Oil Distribution and Export Plan - Amends the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to prohibit exports of domestically produced crude oil transported by pipeline over rights-of-way granted pursuant to such Act. Authorizes exemptions from such prohibition where required for convenience or increased efficiency of transportation.

I have no idea whether it passed or is still in effect or what its implications wrt NAFTA would be.

Maybe Canada could pass a similar law.

[Matrim]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lthough I could be wrong, I believe that the worst that could possibly happen from canada's point of view is they have to survive 6 months of crappy energy prices.

If any member of nafta wants to withdraw, all they have to do is give 6 months notice and they are free and clear out of it. Its that simple. If someone feels they need out, they can get out.

[Dvanharn]

There's an intersting end paragraph in the December, 2004 ASPO newsletter section on Canada's petroleum resources:

[quote]Canada unwisely signed up to the North American Free Trade Association, allowing its resources to be drained by its neighbour. Its inhabitants may accordingly soon have to freeze in winter to keep the hairdryers of Houston going. It is reported that a new impetus to further reduce the barriers under NAFTA-Plus is under active consideration between the three governments, premised again on the pretext of “homeland securityâ€

[Whitecrab]

Already had a little thread on this:

NAFTA - How surely does Canada owe the US?

As for our opinions, most of us dislike Bush, a lot. (Not all of us, but enough that it's an easy generalization to make). We're pissed about some free trade screw overs, glad to be out of Iraq, and astonished at how bad a manager and war leader Bush seems to be.

I find the US administration has been oddly ignorant/absent with regard to Canada, lately. Don't think ol Georgie boy pays us much mind, to be honest. Wonder what the visit will bring. Probably nothing, given Canada's current political climate.

[Grasshopper]

[QUOTE]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;

(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. The foregoing provision does not apply
to a higher price which may result from a measure taken
pursuant to subparagraph (a) that only restricts the
volume of exports; and

(c) the restriction does not require the disruption of
normal channels of supply to such other Party or normal
proportions among specific energy or basic
petrochemical goods supplied to the other Party such
as, for example, between crude oil and refined products
and among different categories of crude oil and of
refined products.


North American Free Trade Agreement 0.6 energy

It looks like a proportion is guaranteed, not necessarily an absolute amount. I think that Canada has adequate resources that domestic consumption would not be disrupted by demand from the south. After oil's production peak (or when demand exceeds supply, which is likely to be sooner), high energy prices will tend to reduce demand. I am sure you will find many sites full of anti-NAFTA and anti-Bush rhetoric if you only Googled for them.
I believe in free and fair trade, and GATT and NAFTA are a step in the right direction. Trade and economic interdependency reduce the chance of conflict. Parochial and xenophobic politicians (and lobbyists) tend to restrict trade and increase the chance of conflict.
Bush's visit to Canada seems to be an attempt to mend fences and reiterate sentiments of friendship, although he mentioned the missile defence program, suggesting he wants Canada on side with that. Paul Martin made a statement in reply, that Canada was a sovereign nation, and that any decision "for or agin" would be Canada's to make. I think he was speaking to Canadians rather than Americans when he said that.
Bush Presses Canada on Ballistic Missile Defense

[Specop_007]

Right now Canadians stand to gain quite a bit.
Trust me, theres more then 1 pissed of farmer because Canada can come here and unload truckful's of argicultural products.
If Canada thinks their the only ones getting a raw deal, they have a very, very narrow mindset.

[ailrickson73]

THE FOLLOWING IS A FOLKLORE SONG BASED ONTHE FACT THAT THE CANADIEN ANCESTORS IN 1812 PUSHED BACK THE INVASION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND CHASED THE AMERICANS DOWN TO WASHINGTON. ONCE THERE, THEY DAMAGED THE CITY IN AMNY WAYS INCLUDING BURNING DOWN THE WHITE HOUSE!
Back in 1812, Madison was mad (he was the president you know)
He thought he would show the british, where they augt to go
He thought he would invade Canada, he thought that he was tough!
Instead we went ot Washingtonnnnnnnn, AND BURN DOWN ALL HIS STUFF!
And the white house burn burn burn, and were the ones that did it!
And the white house burn burn burn, while the president ran and cried
And the white house burn burn burn, though the americans wont admit it,
And the white house burn burn burn whiel the americans ran and cried...
WahWahWah!!!

Well, back in 1812 we where just sitting around, minding our own business planting crops into the ground...
We heard the soldiers coming and we didn't like that sound, SO WE WENT DOWN TO WASHINGTON AND BURNED IT TO THE GROUND!
Wellllllll...... We fired our guns but the yankees kept on coming, but there wasn't as many as there was a while ago...

We fired again, and the yanks went on running, down the mississippi down the gulf of Mexico-o-o-o-o!

Well they ran through the snow and they ran through the forest,
They ran through the bushes where the beavers wouldn't go!

they ran so fast they forgot to bring their culture,
down the mississippi to the gulf of Mexico-o-o-o

[Denny]

The intent of NAFTA regarding oil production and sales was to provide an open market between Canada and the U.S.

The U.S. cannot restrict imports of petroleum from Canada by any taxing mechanism and Canda cannot restrict export by any such mechanism either.

Back in 1980, the Canadian government came up with a novel mechanism, called the National Energy Policy, to gain money from the oil shortage of that time and to subsidize other parts of Canada then suffering from high oil prices. It put on an export tax. The net result was that Canada's economy was effectively sheltered from high oil prices. But, the NEP fell apart as oil prices fell.

The U.S. wanted to retain normal market access to Canada's oil with NAFTA. It got it. NAFTA does not dictate quantitities or prices, it just says the same market pricing must prevail. In a sense, the United States is like any other Canadian province in this regard. Alberta can sell oil to Montreal or to Chicago, but it will be at the same price, adjusted for pipeline costs, of course.

I do not see it as necessarily bad. The last thing we want is to artificially depress oil prices in Canada which just encourages use. Royalties can be put on oil, and can increase, but these apply equally to all end users buying the oil or gas.

[oiless]

Yes, we can back out with six months notice. Won't happen, we are OWNED.

This may clear things up a bit, from a report commisioned by the BC government in 1993:

Many witnesses were gravely concerned about the NAFTA's potential to undermine Canada's ability to initiate sovereign energy policy. Chapter Six of the NAFTA, "Energy and Basic Petrochemicals", clearly defines restrictions on the ability of Canada and its provinces to establish export quotas or taxes in order to prevent the depletion of non-renewable hydrocarbon resources. Article 603.2 of the NAFTA states:


The Parties understand that the provisions of the GATT incorporated in paragraph 1 prohibit, in any circumstances in which any other form of quantitative restriction is prohibited, minimum or maximum export-price requirements and, except as permitted in enforcement of countervailing and anti-dumping orders and undertakings, minimum or maximum import price requirements.
North American Free Trade Agreement, pp. 6.2


This section states that Canada and its provinces are not free to impose quantitative restrictions on the export of its non-renewable resources. As the consumption of non-renewable energy resources is clearly market-driven, notwithstanding state measures to decrease energy consumption and increase efficiency, such restrictions on Canadian autonomy will likely cause premature depletion of our non-renewable resources. Furthermore, the sale of our non-renewable energy reserves at market-driven prices constitutes little more than a subsidization of U.S. energy consumers.
Further, the proportional-sharing of Canada's energy resources with the U.S. is required under Article 605 of the agreement, and this obligation extends to circumstances of national shortage. In other words, Canada cannot sell its energy resources to U.S. customers for any more than Canadians pay for those same resources. Also, in times of shortage, Canada must continue to provide the U.S. with its historical share of available Canadian resources, regardless of the impact of such a measure on Canada's economy or society. In the FTA and the NAFTA, the federal government has given up control over one of the most essential benefits Canadians have as owners of our resources, the price and the conditions under which we are willing to share our resources.

NAFTA has other interesting effects: (bottom item on page)

http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/02-10-24/inbrief.htm

and, (Canadian government retracted ban and settled)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/ethyl.htm

and,

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/ ... 6604/print

There's more plenty more if you look...