Oil and Wood

[Riverwind]

It has appears that Martin has found a way to use energy to pressure US on softwood and actually promote the interests of Alberta at the same time.

This is a quote from a earlier CNN article.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/09/08/hu....a.ap/index.html

"What I worry about is that the United States is making it easy for China; that in one way or another the United States is screwing up in its relationship with Canada," said Richard C. Bush, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

"And that makes it very easy for Hu Jintao to walk in and say, 'Hi, I'm from China and we want to be your friend. And by the way, I want to buy your oil and your minerals and let's not worry about your neighbor next door. We've both got problems with them, so let's talk.'''

Martin went on CNN yesterday and basically said the same thing to Americans.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...ront/TopStories

Although this one example is not going to convince many Albertans to vote Liberal it is nice to see creative solutions to problems that don't pit one region of the country against another.

[B. Max]

It has appears that Martin has found a way to use energy to pressure US on softwood and actually promote the interests of Alberta at the same time.

This is a quote from a earlier CNN article.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/09/08/hu....a.ap/index.html

"What I worry about is that the United States is making it easy for China; that in one way or another the United States is screwing up in its relationship with Canada," said Richard C. Bush, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

"And that makes it very easy for Hu Jintao to walk in and say, 'Hi, I'm from China and we want to be your friend. And by the way, I want to buy your oil and your minerals and let's not worry about your neighbor next door. We've both got problems with them, so let's talk.'''

Martin went on CNN yesterday and basically said the same thing to Americans.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...ront/TopStories

Although this one example is not going to convince many Albertans to vote Liberal it is nice to see creative solutions to problems that don't pit one region of the country against another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For some reason i'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. I believe they already have plans to start exporting oil to asia. Suncor has plans to build a five billion dollar pipeline to the west coast. Last week they still hadn't decide on terminal location on the coast. Most likely they are going to find groups opposed to it lined up all the way to the point where they'll end up srcapping the whole idea.

[Riverwind]

For some reason i'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. I believe they already  have plans to start exporting oil to asia. Suncor has plans to build a five billion dollar pipeline to the west coast. Last week they still hadn't decide on terminal location on the coast. Most likely they are going to find groups opposed to it lined up all the way to the point where they'll end up scrapping the whole idea.

Well, it is the environmentalists in BC that would try to shut it down and the fact that having the pipeline gives Canada a way to pressure the US on softwood would ensure they have minimal political support in the province. A bigger problem would be the native groups that will line up at the trough the second someone tries to put a pipeline through "their" territory. Also there is the risk the US may try to pressure the feds to not build the pipeline.

[B. Max]

The indians up north have pretty well killed off the norman wells pipeline with their demands. The oil companies have said it's just about to the point where it's not worth it and are considering scrapping it. Two groups have said they are happy with it, and one group is holding up the whole thing. Going across BC one can expect the problems to be ten fold.

[geoffrey]

Sell our cars to China or something like that, maybe cod . Anything but oil. We all knew (we being Albertans) that the feds were going to try to take our money somehow, and if declaring a trade war on the Americans with our products is the way they are going to do it, they are only asking for additional discontent in the West.

Alberta oil can be more cheaply refined and sold to Americans than Chinese, creating a larger profit margin. Transfering business from the US to China will hurt Alberta, but benifet the rest of the country that produces softwood when the US caves in on that issue.

Not to mention, maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't see how Ottawa can dictate who private industry can sell to? If anyone knows how Martin can claim he's going to take our oil to China, I'd like to hear about this.

[Canuck E Stan]

Sell our cars to China or something like that, maybe cod wink.gif . Anything but oil.

Canada does not have a Car company,we manufacture for either American of Japanese companies.I believe we are the only G8 country that does not have it's own national car company.We have little to say about cars we make for others. As for cod.....what cod?

The only thing we have is natural resources.

[Riverwind]

Not to mention, maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't see how Ottawa can dictate who private industry can sell to? If anyone knows how Martin can claim he's going to take our oil to China, I'd like to hear about this.

Right now Alberta has two customers: Canada and the US. Adding China/Asia to that mix could do nothing but benefit Alberta. Ottawa does not need to force oil companies to do anything: the fact that China could out bid the US for Alberta oil would make up for any additional refining/transport costs.

[August1991]

It has appears that Martin has found a way to use energy to pressure US on softwood and actually promote the interests of Alberta at the same time.

Sparhawk, your post is based on the premise that trade is like a chess game, or a hockey match. It's not.

If we were involved in a war, a football match or a divorce with the US, then it might make sense for us to bring China into the competition. But we don't compete with the US - we trade with Americans.

[geoffrey]

Sell our cars to China or something like that, maybe cod wink.gif . Anything but oil.

Canada does not have a Car company,we manufacture for either American of Japanese companies.I believe we are the only G8 country that does not have it's own national car company.We have little to say about cars we make for others. As for cod.....what cod?

The only thing we have is natural resources.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We manufacture Asian and American cars, some of which are resold to the United States. Use that in the trade war.

Canada also does not have an oil company, nor resources. Natural resources are owned provincally. They can't be touched by Ottawa, it is in the BNA Act for the original provinces, and in specific acts for the later additions to confederation.

The point I was making is that it makes as much sense to use Ontario's auto industry or Quebec's power industry or something along the lines of that. Ottawa owns neither.

And to Sparhawk, it is fine if China buys our oil at a higher cost, it doesn't matter. I fear Ottawa would do something more along the lines of the Wheat Board.

[Riverwind]

If we were involved in a war, a football match or a divorce with the US, then it might make sense for us to bring China into the competition.  But we don't compete with the US - we trade with Americans.

Trade requires rules. If rules are broken they must be enforced. NAFTA was a contract that the US signed and they refuse to live up to it. If you signed a contract with someone and they refused to live up to the terms would you pretend it never happened and conduct business as usual or would you use whatever legal means possible to pressure the other party into living up to the terms of the contract?

Look at it another way: bringing in China as competition for Alberta oil is an excellent negotiating tactic. You always stress the need for a negotiated settlement.

[geoffrey]

If we were involved in a war, a football match or a divorce with the US, then it might make sense for us to bring China into the competition.  But we don't compete with the US - we trade with Americans.

Trade requires rules. If rules are broken they must be enforced. NAFTA was a contract that the US signed and they refuse to live up to it. If you signed a contract with someone and they refused to live up to the terms would you pretend it never happened and conduct business as usual or would you use whatever legal means possible to pressure the other party into living up to the terms of the contract?

Look at it another way: bringing in China as competition for Alberta oil is an excellent negotiating tactic. You always stress the need for a negotiated settlement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed, we should bring as many parties in to bid for our oil. It does already occur to some extent on international commodity markets, but some more direct trade with China would be nice.

One of our major problems is that we don't import enough from the US. And what we do, is critical for our business here. The best way to combat a protectionist tariff is to hit them where it hurts most to the US. However, that can't be done, because of the huge comparitive advantage they hold over us in finished products. Technology and refined fuel products would make sense, perhaps cars, but these would all hurt us at home.

[Montgomery Burns]

SparHawk:

If you signed a contract with someone and they refused to live up to the terms would you pretend it never happened and conduct business as usual or would you use whatever legal means possible to pressure the other party into living up to the terms of the contract?

Does that apply to someone who signs a ceasefire treaty?

[Yaro]

Just in case anyones wondering, oil sold to the Chinese would be sold at exactly the same price as what it would be sold to the Americans for.

[Yodeler]

[if we were involved in a war then it might make sense for us to bring China into the competition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you mean?

[Leafless]

China a country noted for human right abuses now is being pursued by equality rights leader Canada as a substitute for U.S. trade.

It's obvious Canada still does not know it's place in the world and has obvious disconcern for the fact the U.S. can bring Canada to it's knees any time it chooses employing any one 1001 different methods.

Someday Canada will learn (hopefully) the value of a military and the definition of a truly soverign country.

[Yodeler]

Just in case anyones wondering, oil sold to the Chinese would be sold at exactly the same price as what it would be sold to the Americans for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But surely Alberta's "goo" doesn't fetch as much as Saudi's "sweet"!

Does it?

[BHS]

Just in case anyones wondering, oil sold to the Chinese would be sold at exactly the same price as what it would be sold to the Americans for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But surely Alberta's "goo" doesn't fetch as much as Saudi's "sweet"!

Does it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct me if I'm wrong, Yaro, but different grades of unrefined petrol run at different prices on the international oil market, and that's the only consideration - the identity of the buyer or seller is irrelevant.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_sweet_crude

Light, sweet crude is a type of petroleum

Benchmarks The most widely used crude oil price benchmarks in the world are West Texas Intermediate (WTI), used primarily in the U.S; Brent, used primarily in Europe; and the OPEC market basket, used around the world. (Other benchmarks, like Dubai, are used in Asia.) WTI is very light and very sweet. This makes it ideal for producing products like low-sulfur gasoline and low-sulfur diesel. Brent is not as light or as sweet as WTI but it is still a high-grade crude. The OPEC basket is slightly heavier and sourer than Brent. As a result of these gravity and sulfur differences, WTI typically trades at a dollar or two premium to Brent and another dollar or two premium to the OPEC basket. The OPEC basket typically trades in OPEC’s official price range. [1]

Crude oil is the world's most actively traded commodity, and the NYMEX Division light, sweet crude oil futures contract is the world's most liquid forum for crude oil trading, as well as the world's largest-volume futures contract trading on a physical commodity. Because of its excellent liquidity and price transparency, the contract is used as a principal international pricing benchmark

While the oil sands produce...

Premium Albian Synthetic

Premium Albian Synthetic is a 35°API sweet blend of hydrotreated LC Finer and virgin streams produced at the Scotford Upgrader. It is characterized by low sulfur, a high distillate yield and the absence of vacuum residue. The absence of vacuum residue in Premium Albian Synthetic enables refiners to produce light products without residual fuel oil. Premium Albian Synthetic is an attractive alternative to conventional sweet crudes and other synthetic crudes because of its unique characteristics.

among other things.

source: http://www.westernoilsands.com/html/products/premium.html

[Yaro]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Yaro, but different grades of unrefined petrol run at different prices on the international oil market, and that's the only consideration - the identity of the buyer or seller is irrelevant.

Absolutely correct, the price is determined by grade and at the point of sale.

[Leafless]

It's amazing how these threads go off topic---

Anyways Paul Martin thinks he is scoring big time running to China looking for a new trading partner to teach the U.S. a lesson.

But he should remember China is a human Rights abuser and according to local media has been accused of large scale coporate espionage, copyright infringement, software piracy, extorting bribes and kickbacks from it's buisness partners to ignoring international trade conventions to swapping market access for political support.

Looks like the Liberals are running in the wrong direction to possibly avoid the same or similar problems as they are with the U.S.

[Yodeler]

Paul Martin thinks he is scoring big time running to China looking for a new trading partner to teach the U.S. a lesson.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bruce Garvey read my mind when he wrote:

"Any way you slice it, you don't have to be Henry Kissinger to figure out that the next economic and military superpower confrontation will be between the U.S. and China.

There is one nightmare scenario that has haunted anyone with a semblance of wit since 9/11 -- the prospect of the U.S. slamming the border shut over some security breach. In an instant, there goes the Canadian economy.

To think that this could happen over $5-billion worth of duties owed to profitable, if not booming, forestry companies is unthinkable.

And for Martin to blithely fantasize about replacing our common North American heritage with some strategic soul mate partnership with China is the height of irresponsibility."

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...2e-6bacb66b937a

[Yaro]

But he should remember China is a human Rights abuser and according to local media has been accused of large scale corporate espionage, copyright infringement, software piracy, extorting bribes and kickbacks from it's buisness partners to ignoring international trade conventions to swapping market access for political support.

The US is just as big if not a bigger human rights abuser then China. China is not the police state it is portrayed as being, they have fewer police at every level then any of the western nations and although they have there problems human rights abuses are pretty far down the list at this point.

The above is stated with the understanding that the economic free zone in China is not included in China proper and the human rights abuses committed there are usually committed under foreign control.

The US has the worlds largest espionage organizations and has been spying on the corporate entities of other countries using Omnivore, and before that Carnivore, and before that Echelon. The whole of the modern cutting edge encryption industry is based upon countering US industrial espionage.

Having said that the Chinese are just as bad, they spy generally using more manpower and less technology but its clear they have no moral issue with spying to whatever extent they can. They just have a lot less to lose in the spy game.

The issues of IP are extremely important going forward. A country like China will never have any desire or need to enforce IP law internally. Why would they? It would simply be a direct cost with no benefit besides lowering the living standard of there population.

Right now Chinese citizens can get virtually any piece of IP at little or no cost, this is a tremendous factor in maintaining a relatively high living standard.

This of course relevant if you ignore two important factors.

1. IP law has become insane, extended way way beyond its natural or valuable reach.

2. Using a scarcity based value and distribution model for a non-scarce product wasn't asinine.

Looks like the Liberals are running in the wrong direction to possibly avoid the same or similar problems as they are with the U.S.

Absolutely, the only long term strategy that makes any sense is the development and encouragement of domestic consumption and creating agreements on the basic principles of social law for any country we are going to deal with. Unfortunately that would require a lot of short term pain which no government looking to get reelected is going to want any part of.

There is one nightmare scenario that has haunted anyone with a semblance of wit since 9/11 -- the prospect of the U.S. slamming the border shut over some security breach. In an instant, there goes the Canadian economy.

The US closing there borders would be a short term disaster and a long term blessing. The fact of the matter is at the end of the day we can do a great deal more damage to them then they can do to us. We have dozens of very anxious trading partners all over the world who would be very happy to get there hands on natural resource agreements. Why people think that because we stop exporting to the US(something that will trickle down as our dollar rises anyways) will have such a huge impact beyond what will occur naturally is beyond me.

And for Martin to blithely fantasize about replacing our common North American heritage with some strategic soul mate partnership with China is the height of irresponsibility."

China is a far more suitable partner then the US for us, further to that over the last 25 years they have been pretty damn responsible and honest on the world stage. No I don't want to cozy up to China but the notion that the US has been honest or good neighbors to Canada is laughable. It was largely at the behest of the US that we dismantled our military, that same military that they are now screaming at us to strengthen (now that we have no military-industrial base and will have to purchase it from them-or so they assume).

[Yodeler]

The US closing there borders would be a short term disaster and a long term blessing. The fact of the matter is at the end of the day we can do a great deal more damage to them then they can do to us.

China is a far more suitable partner then the US for us. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mighty China IS a superpower, and they are not afraid to use their nukes on the United States. They said so ... just a few months ago.

Like Bruce Garvey says, there IS going to be a military confrontation between the U.S. and China.

And if China wins this confrontation, and ONLY if China wins this confrontation ... will your bullshit above, Yaro, make any sense.

[Yaro]

Mighty China IS a superpower, and they are not afraid to use their nukes on the United States. They said so ... just a few months ago.

Not surprisingly again you don't know what your talking about, the statement your referring to made by Zhu Chenghu was not only stated that it was his personal opinion that China would use nukes to defend itself this in and of itself falls well under the no shit classification. What kind of deterrent would nukes be if they said something other then we will use them to defend ourselves?

Like Bruce Garvey says, there IS going to be a military confrontation between the U.S. and China.

Bruce Garvey is an idiot, has always been an idiot, and its highly likely he will always be an idiot. The man rights for the national post, the flagship of a media group is modeled after Fox. Not only that hes a rather poor writer by there standards bringing us such beautiful (and blatantly fabricational articles) "Bring the hot seat to Canada" and "Blimp comeback pushed in Manitoba, at Pentagon". The man attacked law professors accross the country for stating the simple truth that in order to deny gay marriage Harper would have had to use the not withstanding clause, something that he had argued against the very existence of. He is in short a simple minded ideologue with a proven track record of idiocy.

And if China wins this confrontation, and ONLY if China wins this confrontation ... will your bullshit above, Yaro, make any sense.

There is no such thing as a winner between China and the US, each nation would ,without realistic possibility for victory, annihilate each other. Which is why there will never be a war between any of the current nuclear powers, because any victory would be pyrrhic.

Why would a country like the US and/or China risk what will be at at the worst a place at the forefront of the worlds powers? In order for this to take place you would need a completely irrational leadership in either country which is not the case and is highly unlikely to become the case.

[Riverwind]

Why would a country like the US and/or China risk what will be at at the worst a place at the forefront of the worlds powers? In order for this to take place you would need a completely irrational leadership in either country which is not the case and is highly unlikely to become the case.

The trouble is Tiawan. If China could decide sometime after the 2008 olympics to simply invade Taiwan and let the rest of the world sputter helplessly. I think China's leaders are dumb enough to do that.