[MrPC]

The biggest problems that I can see with Canada are its NAFTA obligations (particularly with regard to forced Natural Gas exports), and the general risks involved in having a greedy and gluttonous neighbour. In an energy crisis, neither will bode well.

[Cool Hand Linc]

NAFTA is a 2 way street. Both good and bad. Both countries benefit from it.

[MrPC]

I doubt it. The US had far greater resources to base its negotiations on. They probably knew all about peak oil, and negotiated from this position. Heck, the invasions of a country that would be a strategic pipeline location, but more importantly, the invasion of a (potentially) major oil producer, on flimsy pretexts, seem to be evidence of this knowledge.

I fully expect that the fine print in NAFTA and the US-Australia FTAs will eventually prove to be a legal minefield for the junior partners during the coming energy crunch, and that FTAs with the USA are best avoided entirely.

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?

[Onyered]

Yes of course your right the U.S has never done anything for any other country. Like landing at Guadalcanal in WWII. That was to...hmm I guess it was to keep the Japanese from invading Australia. What a mistake.

[nero]

From the Canadian perspective the United States certainly does play hard ball on trade. And yes they use their size to great effect. They're like Shaquil O'Neal. You just can't budge them.

With respect to NAFTA and energy, I remember that during the negotiations for free trade in the eighties, guaranteed access to Canada's oil was one of Canada's few aces that the US actually cared about. Our only other ace as I understand it was that Reagan had a soft spot for Canada and wanted the deal done. Canada has burnt that bridge and we can never go back to a national energy program that shows a preference to domestic consumers.

One 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) I read that it is projected that in the next ten years close to a 100 billions dollars will be invested in various projects. So until some sort of catastophic implosion of the economy due to peak oil (if you subscribe to that theory which I don't) Northern Alberta will be a booming place. If the economy crashes, the oil sands projects will break down. They are hugely capital intensive and would not work without the support of our entire modern economy.

[Ender]

I guess it was to keep the Japanese from invading Australia.

Let's not have that debate here. Suffice to say there's two sides to it, and Australia has contributed substantially to American operations since that time, most of which were against our own national interest.

[notacornucopian]

Try this link for the Utilities Board report regarding Alberta NG / Oil reserves & projections
www.eub.gov.ab.ca/bbs/products/STs/st98-2004.pdf

Read carefully - there is usually a lot of industry doublespeak in this document ( e.g. " Ultimate " natural gas refers to the total endowment that the province had before drilling began ).

I have not read this version yet - if anyone finds unusual revisions compared to last years report, please post....

[Onyered]

Gotcha.. U.S haters speak out, all others set down and shut up.

[basketballjones]

I doubt it. The US had far greater resources to base its negotiations on. They probably knew all about peak oil, and negotiated from this position. Heck, the invasions of a country that would be a strategic pipeline location, but more importantly, the invasion of a (potentially) major oil producer, on flimsy pretexts, seem to be evidence of this knowledge.

to me, this is analogous to the way the body acts when it's cold - blood flow to the limbs is restricted to keep the torso warm. i expect the US will act in a similar fashion in the coming years. The survival of the US under an ever escalating energy crisis will mean it must act with increasing desperation as time goes on. And who knows what the limits to it's desperation might be.

[MadScientist]

The US is a fascist militarist state which sees violence as a solution to just about any problem.

I would put practically nothing past them.

So..which country would act differently if they were in power? Russia? China? England?

Actually, the US uses many tools to solve problems. Violence is not our only weapon.

While the US is certainly interested in maintaining and expanding its power, we have done more good for the world than bad. The US did not create the world's problems. Just because we are the most powerful at this point in history (primarily from our sacrifices during WWII), and all eyes are upon us, doesnt make us "violently fascist".

Im sure you can go on and on about how much better the world would be if your country was in charge and we all would join hands and enter your fairy tale. Unfortunately, the reality is that the world is running out of oil. And violence is likely to continue, with or without the US.

If you really want to place blame on someone, consider the international megacorporations. Many believe they are the power behind the thrones and are responsible for the erosion of "good" in the world.

[notacornucopian]

Just to get back to the original topic, I keep imagining this conversation back in the eighties moments after the glowing rendition of "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling" performed by Ronald Reagan and then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney:

President Reagan: Well, Brian, did you have a chance to think about our little conversation the other day ?
P.M. Mulroney: Yes, yes I did Ronny. So what you're saying is that if I go along with the free trade agreement, you won't invade Canada ?
Reagan: Exactly. Over the next few decades, our demand for natural resources will outstrip supply in a big way. We believe it would be in the best interests of our two countries to have access to say.....60% of everything you have.
Mulroney: 60% ? How am I supposed get that through the senate ?
Reagan: Oh come now, Brian, we both know that Canada has a measly 10% of of the population of the U.S.A. You can easily meet your domestic demand with what's left. Didn't you tell me once that all you had to do was give the people beer & hockey to get anything ratified ?
Mulroney: True, and I could give them the old " new age of prosperity " bit......
Reagan: I'll be receiving your full co-operation in this matter, then ?
Mulroney: Well, I wouldn't want to be remembered as the Prime Minister who screwed up the relationship between Canada and it's southern neighbor......

[MattSavinar]

We do have a plan to invade Canada on the books. Will look it up later and post the links. . .

It's not that we actually intend to use it (for now). We have plans to invade pretty much any country, if the need arises.

One thing to keep in mind: Nazi Germany was considered at the turn of the 20th century to be the most cultured, advanced nation in the world. They had a well functioning civil service, social security and medicare style progams . . .etc, long before anybody else did.

So what happened? Hyperinflation, masssive unemployment, food and fuel shortages and a general feeling the rest of the world was ganging up on them.

Then some guy got elected with less than 30 percent of the vote, the German Parliament was burned down, communist (jewish) terrorists were blamed, Poland was invaded under false pretenses, etc. . .

The moral of the story is this: when people are short on key resources, they do crazy, crazy, stuff that they would never have considered doing under different circumstances.

Like invading their neighbors.

Matt

[azreal60]

Was it not posted on this site that at anytime a member of nafta may give 6 months notice and then withdraw? I mean, that kinda means canada doesn t have to keep selling their resources to the US for trade access. If the US economny tanks, giving candaians access to that economy won t exactly be an advantage will it?

[Synergist]

From a historical point of view, Canada's continued independence from the US is kind of surprising. Note: I'm not trying to insult any Canadians! I just mean the two countries' early histories are so entwined, and so similar, it's kind of surprising that the centrifugal forces didn't pull Canada under the U.S.'s sway, as opposed to more faroff places like Hawaii and the Phillippines. Look how the Ukraine was long under the sway of Russia, or how "natural" it was for Austria to be joined to Hitler's Germany.

Part of Canada's continued independence had to do with the strength of the British Empire, but had the British intervened in the U.S. Civil War in favor of the South, and lost (which certainly was a possibility), it's quite possible they would have lost Canada as a result.

Consider that at the end of the Civil War, the Union had at least half a million armed, veteran troops that could easily have taken Canada.

Going back to today, in many respects Canada's independence is seriously compromised by NAFTA and the various military treaties. And if Canada's looser drug laws and immigration laws (in terms of letting terrorists come through) continues to annoy U.S. authorities, eventual North American 'anschluss' isn't impossible.

[Whitecrab]

It's been thrown around a lot that Canada will have to continue to export natural gas to the USA under NAFTA. Maybe oil too?

Can someone already familiar with the treaty answer me this:
-What exactly does Canada owe the US (that's peak relevant). Are we getting much useful in return?
-How hard is it for Canada to get out of NAFTA?
-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).

Hope I'm not being too lazy, appealing to those who know the treaty better than I to sum up the details for us all. Thanks.

[backstop]

Whitecrab - assuming the loophole you recall is right, it seems a pretty bizarre clause to have to negotiate into a major treaty, unless of course it was demanded with peak oil in mind.

Hence my question, which year were the negotiations completed ?

Regards,

Backstop

[EnviroEngr]

Three cheers for the ankle-grabbing ceremony we all partook of during the Clinton years!

[nero]

Whitecrab,

I'm pretty sure what was written into the FTA was a guarantee to have equal access to our oil and gas. In other words we commited ourselves to not showing a preference to Candaian consumers and to not closing the border in some future energy crisis.

In reality this piece of paper didn't make much of a difference, by the time it was signed the national energy policy was already a distant memory. In practical terms I don't think Canada can turns the tap off anymore. With respect to natural gas, no American president would stand idly by while the lights went dim. Canada would go the way of the Dutch East Indies.

[nero]

Three cheers for the ankle-grabbing ceremony we all partook of during the Clinton years!

Actually that particular agreement was negotiated in the Reagan years

[Keith_McClary]

-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).

But if you live in Alberta the provincial government can subsidize your natural gas bill thanks to oil and gas revenues.

Ontario, Quebec and BC do the same for hydro customers thanks to export revenues to the US.

Ontario, Quebec and BC seem to consider oil and gas to be "national" resources, while hydro is a "provincial" resource.