[oiless]

Strangely enough I think we basically agree on the substance. We seem to disagree on how it will work out on the ground, with you feeling that WTO article XX g,i, & j will provide plenty of protection for my country, while I feel that they will in the end provide little.

By the way, the use of the word "export" I was referring to in my previous post was this one: "Subject to Annex 605, a Party may adopt or maintain a restriction otherwise justified under Article XI:2(a) or XX(g), (i) or (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of an energy or basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, only if:

the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the total export shipments"

[MOCKBA]

Conclusion-Contrary to some claims, NAFTA does not commit Canada to exporting a certain share of its energy supply to the United States regardless of Canadian needs. Canadian producers sell without restriction on the open market.
The only significant limitation NAFTA places on Canada is that it prevents the Canadian government from implementing policies that interfere with the normal functioning of energy markets in North America. Provided they have the demand and can pay the price, Canadian consumers could conceivably buy 100% of all energy produced in the country without violating NAFTA.

605 is nothing but anti-dumping clause and as been said many many times it only forbids Canadian government to implement policies that would give canadian businesses unfair competative advantage due to cheaper energy. As long as energy is available to everyone in NAFTA and actually outside NAFTA as well at the same price Canada could buy all the NG it produces... and what the hell could buy all North American NG if it wishes. Mexico doesn't have similar clause only because it is a poor country and cannot function without subsidized energy.

[Cashmere]

Conclusion-Contrary to some claims, NAFTA does not commit Canada to exporting a certain share of its energy supply to the United States regardless of Canadian needs. Canadian producers sell without restriction on the open market.
The only significant limitation NAFTA places on Canada is that it prevents the Canadian government from implementing policies that interfere with the normal functioning of energy markets in North America. Provided they have the demand and can pay the price, Canadian consumers could conceivably buy 100% of all energy produced in the country without violating NAFTA.

605 is nothing but anti-dumping clause and as been said many many times it only forbids Canadian government to implement policies that would give canadian businesses unfair competative advantage due to cheaper energy. As long as energy is available to everyone in NAFTA and actually outside NAFTA as well at the same price Canada could buy all the NG it produces... and what the hell could buy all North American NG if it wishes. Mexico doesn't have similar clause only because it is a poor country and cannot function without subsidized energy.

If so, explain why Canada is importing NG from the other side of the planet.

[vampyregirl]

Conclusion-Contrary to some claims, NAFTA does not commit Canada to exporting a certain share of its energy supply to the United States regardless of Canadian needs. Canadian producers sell without restriction on the open market.
The only significant limitation NAFTA places on Canada is that it prevents the Canadian government from implementing policies that interfere with the normal functioning of energy markets in North America. Provided they have the demand and can pay the price, Canadian consumers could conceivably buy 100% of all energy produced in the country without violating NAFTA.

605 is nothing but anti-dumping clause and as been said many many times it only forbids Canadian government to implement policies that would give canadian businesses unfair competative advantage due to cheaper energy. As long as energy is available to everyone in NAFTA and actually outside NAFTA as well at the same price Canada could buy all the NG it produces... and what the hell could buy all North American NG if it wishes. Mexico doesn't have similar clause only because it is a poor country and cannot function without subsidized energy.

If so, explain why Canada is importing NG from the other side of the planet.

Who is importing it? I believe it is a consortium of which Gazprom is a member.
That is why you are not cut out for business Cashmere. You have no understanding of commerce and how it works.

[ROCKMAN]

Y’all are having a good debate and I don’t want to distract from it but this seems like the perfect spot to have some blanks filled in. Here’s the set up: 1) To increase tar sands production more energy is required. 2) Last I heard the Canadian gov’t scraped plans to build 10 (?) nuclear plants in the TS fields. 3) a couple of months ago I saw just one report describing conversations between China and Canada regarding the Chinese building an oil pipeline from the TS fields to the west coast. 4) The Russian NG imports are being arranged by a consortium which will own the gas when it arrives in Canada (?)

The question for this learned group: is there a possible connection between these aspects? More specifically, could the Russian NG be used in the TS fields to increase production rates with that new volume going to China via the new pipeline?

[entropyfails]

This lovely little post doesn't fit in my forum. I hope you all can give it some loving attention.

[MOCKBA]

could the Russian NG be used in the TS fields to increase production rates with that new volume going to China via the new pipeline?

Simple answer is NO. Transporting NG half way over the globe to melt some sand just doesn't make much economic sense. Russian NG (if it ever materialize) would be used in eastern part of the continent to provide some relief once Alberta NG would run out and/or it would not make much sense anymore to transport what is left to the east.

The only energy source that could melt send is micro-nuclear. Unfortunately, the technology will not be available till 2015 or around...

As for the NG supply for Rabasca, Gazprom needs from $100B to $200B or from 1x to 2x the value of the Gazprom as of this year to develop the field from which they plan to sell to both Europe, Canada and whoever... Good luck finding this money in this environment especially considering that today Gazprom price debt 1/0.6 and as it is they may experience difficulties servicing their debt as soon as next year...

[copious.abundance]

Shouldn't there be a cornucopian on this thread by now claiming that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, that oil will be back to $30 in no time?

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, and oil will be back to $30 in no time.

[MonteQuest]

Shouldn't there be a cornucopian on this thread by now claiming that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, that oil will be back to $30 in no time?

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, and oil will be back to $30 in no time.

From the link:

"Officials said the prediction was for 2009."

Oil may be back below $40 but a world wide depression is coming.

[eastbay]

He may still be right. It can rise just as fast as it dropped.

[copious.abundance]

I'll be waiting.

[kublikhan]

Shouldn't there be a cornucopian on this thread by now claiming that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, that oil will be back to $30 in no time?

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, and oil will be back to $30 in no time.

From the link:"Officials said the prediction was for 2009." Oil may be back below $40 but a world wide depression is coming.

Then the prediction looks even more far off. We are not going to see $250 oil in the midst of the 2009 world wide depression.

[Valdemar]

I don't know which is worse: that oil could have gone even higher for whatever reasons, or that what highs we did hit have in part led to a torpedoed economy on unprecedented scales. I'm sure had we not gotten into the property bubble and cheap credit fiasco, that we'd be easy able to afford even $250 oil and fund alternatives.

[Daniel_Plainview]

Shouldn't there be a cornucopian on this thread by now claiming that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, that oil will be back to $30 in no time?

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, and oil will be back to $30 in no time.

$30? How about $20?

[Bas]

Shouldn't there be a cornucopian on this thread by now claiming that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, that oil will be back to $30 in no time?

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, and oil will be back to $30 in no time.

$30? How about $20?

LOL

[JohnDenver]

Oil may be back below $40 but a world wide depression is coming.

Perhaps, but whatever is coming, it obviously wasn't caused by peak oil.

Bottom line: peak oil isn't a problem at all anymore. There's a huge glut of the stuff.

[Bas]

Oil may be back below $40 but a world wide depression is coming.

Perhaps, but whatever is coming, it obviously wasn't caused by peak oil.

Bottom line: peak oil isn't a problem at all anymore. There's a huge glut of the stuff.

it doesn't really matter what caused the crisis, peakoil will keep us down now that we are down until in some years we will be forced down even further by it. To say peakoil isn't a problem at all anymore is simply untrue, prices may be the lowest in almost 5 years but that doesn't mean that production is up. That peakoil coincides with the worst economic crisis in living memory may be a coincidence but that by no means means that the same crisis couldn't have been caused by peakoil a (few) year(s) down the road. And like many argue this crisis may be bad for the supply situation a few years down the road as projects for new oil now are being postponed.

[yesplease]

Oil may be back below $40 but a world wide depression is coming.

Well, recession at least.

[yesplease]

That peakoil coincides with the worst economic crisis in living memory may be a coincidence but that by no means means that the same crisis couldn't have been caused by peakoil a (few) year(s) down the road.

W/ rigorous lending practices and no funny bidness of Wall St. I doubt we would've seen the same crisis. Oil prices might have popped up a bit but w/o all the free credit running around pumping up economic growth and speculation I doubt they would've gone to $145/bbl.

And like many argue this crisis may be bad for the supply situation a few years down the road as projects for new oil now are being postponed.

Eventually it will, but considering we're probably going into the first world recession since the GD I think it'll take longer than a few years before we start having supply problems due to lack of production. That said, who knows, maybe it'll be a very mild recession and world consumption could pop up a bit.

[Bas]

That peakoil coincides with the worst economic crisis in living memory may be a coincidence but that by no means means that the same crisis couldn't have been caused by peakoil a (few) year(s) down the road.

W/ rigorous lending practices and no funny bidness of Wall St. I doubt we would've seen the same crisis. Oil prices might have popped up a bit but w/o all the free credit running around pumping up economic growth and speculation I doubt they would've gone to $145/bbl.

If oil prices had gone much higher or production of oil was widely seen as being passed peak credit problems would've developed as well due to economic uncertainty, to what extent depends on how credit markets would've functioned.

And like many argue this crisis may be bad for the supply situation a few years down the road as projects for new oil now are being postponed.

Eventually it will, but considering we're probably going into the first world recession since the GD I think it'll take longer than a few years before we start having supply problems due to lack of production. That said, who knows, maybe it'll be a very mild recession and world consumption could pop up a bit.

that's still the wildcard, isn't. Is it going to a mere recession and maybe even a relatively light one at that or are we going to continue in a death spiral? things seem reasonably quiet at the moment.