Nexen sale to China approved...

[login]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE8B619M20121208

I'm all for free market but a royalty scheme is needed that benefits the public.

[Hudson Jones]

How about going the other way? We would never be allowed to purchase a company in China.

This deal goes against what Harper tries to sell himself as. I'm sure there is some royalty will be collected. It just won't be by the Canadian public.

[Argus]

I'm opposed to having foreign governments owning anything in Canada. Nevertheless, I don't think they had a lot of choice here. I hope they quickly draw up the clear regulatory framework they've been talking about for some time, a framework which will make any future such purchases impossible.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm trying to understand why people think there aren't Canadian/American companies operating in China.

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/2010-10/27/content_11464172.htm

BEIJING - More than three-fourths of Canadian companies operating in China are profitable, with about 85 percent expressing some level of satisfaction with their overall performance in the country, despite challenges, a report released by a Canadian think tank on Tuesday said.

[GostHacked]

You cannot buy/invest in Chinese companies, so I'd say this should be killed. From CBC with the PM talking the podium has a sign .. ' A Strong Canada' .. should add at the end ' .. is being sold off to the Chinese'.

[Michael Hardner]

You cannot buy/invest in Chinese companies, so I'd say this should be killed. From CBC with the PM talking the podium has a sign .. ' A Strong Canada' .. should add at the end ' .. is being sold off to the Chinese'.

I didn't agree with your post, initially but then I read a few articles in the Globe on this, and none of them outline clear economic advantages.

[Wilber]

I'm trying to understand why people think there aren't Canadian/American companies operating in China.

http://usa.chinadail...nt_11464172.htm

Many Canadian companies do business in China but how many Chinese companies have they bought?

[kairos]

Great the right wing is virtually giving away Canada's resources and jobs to China, and then rewarding their ideologues like the former radio hack Ralph Klein with the order of Canada.

[kward]

http://ca.reuters.co...E8B619M20121208

I'm all for free market but a royalty scheme is needed that benefits the public.

Is a job not a royalty?

[punked]

Is a job not a royalty?

Considering that China's MO is to bring over their own foreign workers no it isn't. Unless you mean jobs for the Chinese in taking Canadian resources. Is that what you mean?

[kward]

Considering that China's MO is to bring over their own foreign workers no it isn't. Unless you mean jobs for the Chinese in taking Canadian resources. Is that what you mean?

A Chinese-owned oil company extracting oil from Canadian soil will employ zero Canadians?

[punked]

A Chinese-owned oil company extracting oil from Canadian soil will employ zero Canadians?

It will employ less Canadians then any other oil Company in the whole world exacting oil. That is just a fact. You can look at how Chinese state companies operate anywhere in the world and clearly see their MO is to bring in their own work force as much as they can. That is a fact and you should do your research before making such ridiculous statements. Just look it already happens here.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/11/24/bc-temporary-workers-mine.html

[bush_cheney2004]

It will employ less Canadians then any other oil Company in the whole world exacting oil. That is just a fact. You can look at how Chinese state companies operate anywhere in the world and clearly see their MO is to bring in their own work force as much as they can....

Not unusual at all, given the number of Canadian oil services contractors that work abroad. How many had to scramble out of Libya when the SHTF ?

[kward]

It will employ less Canadians then any other oil Company in the whole world exacting oil. That is just a fact. You can look at how Chinese state companies operate anywhere in the world and clearly see their MO is to bring in their own work force as much as they can. That is a fact and you should do your research before making such ridiculous statements. Just look it already happens here.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...rkers-mine.html

The question was, will the company employ any Canadians? If it employs one, that's a royalty. It's a small one, yes, but it's there. We can always negotiate for more, or do as was done in the news story you linked, negotiate through the courts.

Are there not Canadian investors who will profit from this company extracting the oil? Does this company have any Canadian shareholders? Would this company not have to improve local infrastructure around its Canadian-based operations to improve its productivity? Are there not ancillary benefits from those improvements for those who live where those improvements are made?

[punked]

The question was, will the company employ any Canadians? If it employs one, that's a royalty. It's a small one, yes, but it's there. We can always negotiate for more, or do as was done in the news story you linked, negotiate through the courts.

Are there not Canadian investors who will profit from this company extracting the oil? Does this company have any Canadian shareholders? Would this company not have to improve local infrastructure around its Canadian-based operations to improve its productivity? Are there not ancillary benefits from those improvements for those who live where those improvements are made?

Yep you are clearly right. Foreign investors should get our resources cheap and extract them using their own labor as long as they employ just one Canadian. That is a great plan right there. Never mind that those resources belong to our people because one person has a minimum wage job now. Come on cost benefit for the Canadian public how about that instead of the crazy idea you suggest of selling out our resources for a song.

BTW your way of managing our resources has been tried in Canada. It happened out East in the Fisheries. How did that turn out for us again? Come on we already know how that story turns out this time lets do it right and plan for the future not just the present.

[kward]

Yep you are clearly right. Foreign investors should get our resources cheap and extract them using their own labor as long as they employ just one Canadian. That is a great plan right there. Never mind that those resources belong to our people because one person has a minimum wage job now. Come on cost benefit for the Canadian public how about that instead of the crazy idea you suggest of selling out our resources for a song.

BTW your way of managing our resources has been tried in Canada. It happened out East in the Fisheries. How did that turn out for us again? Come on we already know how that story turns out this time lets do it right and plan for the future not just the present.

1. "Our resources" Whose? Yours?

2. Who cares if the investors are "foreign"?

3. Okay, if theoretically no Canadians are employed in the physical extraction of the resource from the dirt. Are there any Canadians employed by Canadians who make a good buck on the cheaply, efficiently extracted product? Are there jobs created when shareholders profit from a resource extracted in such a way that maximizes profits?

4. "Our people" Whose? Yours?

5. Is a minimum wage job not better than no job at all?

6. Selling out? How about selling? Which means earning money...here...in this country. Money that circulates, that creates jobs.

7. My way of managing our resources? Why manage at all? Managing is expensive. Selling is profitable.

8. Earning in the present allows for savings and investment that pays dividends in the future. Ignore the present and you leverage the future...needlessly.

9. The fisheries? What about it?

[punked]

1. "Our resources" Whose? Yours?

2. Who cares if the investors are "foreign"?

3. Okay, if theoretically no Canadians are employed in the physical extraction of the resource from the dirt. Are there any Canadians employed by Canadians who make a good buck on the cheaply, efficiently extracted product? Are there jobs created when shareholders profit from a resource extracted in such a way that maximizes profits?

4. "Our people" Whose? Yours?

5. Is a minimum wage job not better than no job at all?

6. Selling out? How about selling? Which means earning money...here...in this country. Money that circulates, that creates jobs.

7. My way of managing our resources? Why manage at all? Managing is expensive. Selling is profitable.

8. Earning in the present allows for savings and investment that pays dividends in the future. Ignore the present and you leverage the future...needlessly.

9. The fisheries? What about it?

Listen if you are of the opinion there is no country there is no boarders blah blah blah there is no use here. If you refuse to accept the premise that Canada is a country for Canadians that is fine but we don't need to beat around the bush in every thread. I'll just stop you now I so do not agree with you and wont.

Edited December 8, 2012 by punked

[kward]

Listen if you are of the opinion there is no country there is no boarders blah blah blah there is no use here. If you refuse to accept the premise that Canada is a country for Canadians that is fine but we don't need to beat around the bush in every thread. I'll just stop you now I so do not agree with you and wont.

Canadians live in Canada. Yes. I'm not beating around the bush, I've asked you questions. No need to put up a wall, it's conversation...never a bad thing.

[login]

Is a job not a royalty?

No, no it isn't.

Although I don't think the same thing will happen as happened with BC Mining, (that is the new chinese owners advertising for people that speak Chinese as an essential job requirement), a royalty goes to the public, if only good government was in place. This allows the exploitation of the land which is collectively owned by the public, that is it holds title (more or less).

While a job is good, only a chain of supply from that individual benefits. The individual while still being accountable to the public through the law is not necesarily responsible for the public, as they are a private individual.

Basically royalities are like jobs for the public interest, while jobs themselves are a chain of support for a private individual.

I think because the land is publically owned (all land is people just have private leases on land which set out their land use allowances)

the public should benefit. I'm not saying jobs arn't good, but I am saying royalties are better than jobs for the public, so long as the public has good government that allows their input while allowing equal access to the government resources.

Exploitation which only benefits few people has the oppourtunity to upset many.

I'm actually not against foreign management, but I think there has to be a very strong oversight and public incentive. The best should manage, but everyone else needs to be protected, otherwise it is exploitation of the public and not oppurtunity to improve the public's quality of life.

Bear in mind this take over wasn't all about alberta. Canada's stake in overseas assets were also effected. Canadian corporate power projection in the resource sector has been hammered ongoing for the last few years especially with major stake areas being effected by the Arab Spring and other turbulence. It weakens Canada's power projection and stake of control of the direction of the energy sector.

Its not about money from the resources it is about direction of the sector, and who has control and access to it.

Edited December 9, 2012 by login

[Evening Star]

a royalty goes to the public, ... This allows the exploitation of the land which is collectively owned by the public, that is it holds title (more or less).

Yeah, I wasn't sure how to answer that question but a job is pretty clearly not the same thing as a royalty as I understand things.

[Michael Hardner]

All in all, it seems to me that Canada benefits overall by allowing the best big in terms of advantages for Canada and also for the seller. I don't put it past Harper to do a thorough analysis on this, so there must be some advantages to this deal that aren't being articulated here.

[TimG]

there must be some advantages to this deal that aren't being articulated here.

Canada does not have enough capital to develop the oil sands. Without capital the resource will simply stay in the ground and benefit no one. The path that Canadian governments must follow a narrow path between encouraging foreign capital investment and maximizing the value Canada gets from the resources. These are often contradictory goals which explains why government policy is so contradictory.

It is worth noting that BHP has committed to investing billions investing in the Jensen potash mines. This is new investment that may not have happened if BHP was simply allowed to buy out the existing players. This is an example of how government restrictions on investment, when applied judiciously, can benefit Canada.

Edited December 9, 2012 by TimG

[kward]

No, no it isn't.

Although I don't think the same thing will happen as happened with BC Mining, (that is the new chinese owners advertising for people that speak Chinese as an essential job requirement), a royalty goes to the public, if only good government was in place. This allows the exploitation of the land which is collectively owned by the public, that is it holds title (more or less).

While a job is good, only a chain of supply from that individual benefits. The individual while still being accountable to the public through the law is not necesarily responsible for the public, as they are a private individual.

Basically royalities are like jobs for the public interest, while jobs themselves are a chain of support for a private individual.

I think because the land is publically owned (all land is people just have private leases on land which set out their land use allowances)

the public should benefit. I'm not saying jobs arn't good, but I am saying royalties are better than jobs for the public, so long as the public has good government that allows their input while allowing equal access to the government resources.

Exploitation which only benefits few people has the oppourtunity to upset many.

I'm actually not against foreign management, but I think there has to be a very strong oversight and public incentive. The best should manage, but everyone else needs to be protected, otherwise it is exploitation of the public and not oppurtunity to improve the public's quality of life.

Bear in mind this take over wasn't all about alberta. Canada's stake in overseas assets were also effected. Canadian corporate power projection in the resource sector has been hammered ongoing for the last few years especially with major stake areas being effected by the Arab Spring and other turbulence. It weakens Canada's power projection and stake of control of the direction of the energy sector.

Its not about money from the resources it is about direction of the sector, and who has control and access to it.

You're separating public money from private when it's all just money. You think a public royalty somehow gets put into the economy better than a privately earned wage? Why, because the worker will just put that wage under a mattress?

No, people buy things, those things get manufactured, they get shipped, they get stocked, they get sold. Every step of that chain employs people, and those people spend their wages, and the chain goes on.

A person spending their money in the private sector is as pure an economic stimulus as exists. A "royalty" going into the government coffers adds layers of filtering and middlemen, and by the time that royalty is allocated for something that might benefit you and your family the amount is far less than might otherwise have entered the economy via workers earning a living and spending it freely.

So, yes, a job is a royalty, and a damn sight better a one than anything an expensive government bureaucracy can provide.

[kward]

Canada does not have enough capital to develop the oil sands. Without capital the resource will simply stay in the ground and benefit no one. The path that Canadian governments must follow a narrow path between encouraging foreign capital investment and maximizing the value Canada gets from the resources. These are often contradictory goals which explains why government policy is so contradictory.

It is worth noting that BHP has committed to investing billions investing in the Jensen potash mines. This is new investment that may not have happened if BHP was simply allowed to buy out the existing players. This is an example of how government restrictions on investment, when applied judiciously, can benefit Canada.

Protectionism is never a good thing. We're all connected, whether we like it or not. Borders are imaginary lines through the eyes of money.

[Michael Hardner]

Canada does not have enough capital to develop the oil sands. Without capital the resource will simply stay in the ground and benefit no one. The path that Canadian governments must follow a narrow path between encouraging foreign capital investment and maximizing the value Canada gets from the resources. These are often contradictory goals which explains why government policy is so contradictory.

It is worth noting that BHP has committed to investing billions investing in the Jensen potash mines. This is new investment that may not have happened if BHP was simply allowed to buy out the existing players. This is an example of how government restrictions on investment, when applied judiciously, can benefit Canada.

Arent' there other investors who could buy in ?