Imported oil and the threat to our security

[a_majoor]

Here is an interesting article which lays out som of the vulneabilities Western civilization faces due to the reliance on cheap imported oil. Where it falls down is the second half, unless the RCMP is enforcing the laws of physics now, most of the "solutions" are in the realm of pipe dreamology.

The efficiencies claimed by many of these technologies are usually the theoretical maximums, rather than the practical efficiencies that day to day machinery can achieve. (Want a real life example? the Toyota and Honda Hybrids are claimed to have 60mpg fuel efficiency, but real life testing by numerous car and consumer magazines only get 40 mpg. This is still better than the usual 30mpg of contemporary sedans, but not a doubling of efficiency).

As for freeing America from needing oil from unstable states, Canada has a trillion barrels of heavy oil (tar sands), which in the short run is more practical than trying to change the entire industreal and transportation infrastructure of the US. I have added a few comments in italics.

Freedom in Security
A naked energy gap.

The explosion of a BP oil refinery not far from Houston last week left at least 15 dead and over 100 wounded. It also served as the latest, vivid reminder of a truth we have for too long chosen to ignore: This nation is dangerously vulnerable to severe economic dislocation and possibly dire national-security threats as a result of its excessive reliance on imported oil and the infrastructure that transforms most of that oil into fuel for our transportation sector.

Of course, the limited number of aging and, in some cases at least, increasingly dangerous refineries is but one aspect of this vulnerability. It is not a trivial one, however. Even before this mishap in Texas, domestic demand for gasoline was so high and the capacity to meet it so constrained that refineries had to coordinate scheduled maintenance lest supply fall short, resulting in lines at gas stations across the country. We will be very lucky if this as-yet-unexplained incident does not produce such an outcome, as well as still-higher prices at the pump. (ironically, tight environmental regulations prevent the construction of new refineries to meet demand...)

Terrorists have certainly figured out that such impacts can be achieved â ” and possibly much worse â ” with attacks on other parts of the international infrastructure upon which the United States currently relies for more than 50 percent of its oil needs. Under present circumstances, pipelines blown in Iraq and Saudi Arabia have a ripple effect that can extend to America. Ports and loading facilities can be attacked and taken offline for months or years at a time. Oil-laden tankers can be sunk at sea, with both devastating ecological and perhaps strategic consequences.

Even in the absence of our enemies exploiting the vulnerabilities associated with our dependence on foreign oil, we confront another unsavory reality: Many of those benefiting from the West's purchase of such imported energy are regimes that are unstable or hostile, or both. As a result, the tens of billions of petrodollars flowing to terrorist-sponsoring states each year translate into income that is available, in part, to people trying to kill us â ” clearly, an untenable situation if we are serious about prevailing in this War on Terror. (if we get smart about exploiting the oil sands, those tens of billions of dollars will flow here

Finally, there is the matter of China. As the prospects for sustaining the kind of economic growth necessary to assure the Communist party's future hold on power become more and more dependent upon imports of energy from abroad, the PRC's aggressiveness in securing these resources is likely to grow concomitantly. Dreadful wars have been precipitated by concerns over access to such resources. If our demand or theirs grows even faster than expected, or supply proves to be less â ” or less reliable â ” than expected, a casus belli could quickly develop between a rapidly arming China and an over-extended United States.

The good news is that there are things we can do now to begin dramatically reducing our reliance on imported oil. A blueprint for energy security has been developed (it can be found at SetAmericaFree.org) to respond to the national security emergency arising from that dependency. It would take advantage of available technologies to make widely available vehicles that can utilize indigenously produced alternative fuels.

Vehicles: Stunning reductions in the consumption of imported oil can be achieved by exploiting the following, existing techniques: "Flexible Fuel Vehicles" that can run on gasoline or alcohol-based fuels, either exclusively or in combination; "hybrid" vehicles which can be powered by either an internal combustion engine or a battery, and "plug-in hybrids," a further refinement that enables the vehicle's battery to be recharged at a standard electrical outlet when not in use. Vehicles utilizing all three can achieve the fuel efficiency equivalent of 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. (just keeping the tires inflated properly can reduce your fuel bill by @ 5%/year)

Fuel Diversification: We currently have the ability to produce alcohol-based fuels (ethanol and methanol) from biomass, dedicated energy crops, waste products and "clean coal." Moreover, diesel fuels can be created from soybean and other vegetable oils, tires and animal byproducts, as well as coal. Such diversity of supply would greatly reduce the danger associated with more of our existing refineries suffering catastrophic failures, either accidentally or by design. (most of these fuels need more energy input to produce than you get out of them, hardly a winning proposition.)

Since scarcely any electricity in this country is generated from oil, utilizing the grid to power the transportation sector can begin to be accomplished at once â ” without increasing demand for imported energy. In fact, thanks to the existing grid's excess capacity at night, it should be possible to support up to 30 percent of the nation's vehicles equipped with plug-in batteries of 20-mile range and not have to expand electricity-generation.

Integrating ultralight materials and fuel additives (some of which can enhance combustion efficiency by up to 25 percent) (Name one) can also materially help diminish our present reliance on foreign oil and our attendant vulnerability, without compromising safety, performance, or cost-effectiveness.

In short, we have a problem at the moment, Houston, arising from our most ill-advised reliance on imported oil. The cost of the blueprint that can help "Set America Free" is estimated to be about $12 billion over four years. This is but a fraction of what other, ambitious national undertakings have cost. For example, the Manhattan Project in today's dollars would have had a price tag of $20 billion; the Apollo program, $100 billion. The return on investment of such a new, visionary endeavor â ” both in terms of enhancing our national security and safeguarding our economic well-being â ” promise to be immense. And the truth of the matter is, we cannot afford to remain vulnerable to problems that could well make yesterday's refinery explosion pale by comparison.

â ” Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a contributing editor to NRO.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200503290758.asp

 

[TCBF]

Odd, how they had to  bomb Germany all to hell to stop their flow of POL, yet the West can be ground to a halt through a few dozen acts of sabotage.

My money is on Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel - ULSD. 

Tom

 

[Infanteer]

My money is on Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel - ULSD.

This is what I figured as well.  In an article in the Economist, they reported that hybrid diesel motors, when utilizing new emissions technology and hybrid setups, were getting better milage then the gas-hybrids being touted in the news today.  So far, the only company marketing these is Peugeot in France.

Still does us no good in the long run, as we are dependent on petroleum.

 

[a_majoor]

This is what I figured as well.   In an article in the Economist, they reported that hybrid diesel motors, when utilizing new emissions technology and hybrid setups, were getting better milage then the gas-hybrids being touted in the news today.   So far, the only company marketing these is Peugeot in France.

Still does us no good in the long run, as we are dependent on petroleum.

Not to rain too much on your parade, but once again, this is an  example of "theoretical" being touted over "practical". The Clinton administration gave the US Big Three automakers several hundred million dollars in a program designed to double the fuel economy of US automobiles (although it was the unsubsidized Toyota which actually marketed the first practical hybrid car. Funny how that works). Chrysler developed several deisel hybrid prototypes with the same general form factor as the Intrepid, and after several attempts created a five passenger sedan which could get 70 mpg.

The reason you can't buy one is it costs $15,000 more than a normal gasoline powered Intrepid. You would have to be driving for several decades to recover that cost differential. Toyota is reputed to take a loss of several thousand dollars on each Prius it sells, but the Japanese are looking long term to establish a market and baseline technology (not to mention that there are actually very few Prius on the market; just enough to excite the granola crowd).

Hybrid or even fuel cell technology will take a few decades to mature enough to be cost effective and practical, there are plenty of fairly simple ways that drivers can eak out an extra % point or two which are cost effective, or for that matter, we can walk (as an Infantryman, that is always plan "b" anyway).

The bigger problem with these plans is that there is already a huge sunk cost of existing infrastructure and equipment; how will it be possible to replace every car and truck in the United states in less than a decade in order to reap these benifits? I am not saying the reserch should be scrapped, but these things need to be realisticly looked at, there can only be a gradual change, and change will only be incremental unless there is an unexpected breakthrough (and even than, there will be a time lag for the effect to ripple through and replace current infrastructure).

 

[Infanteer]

From what I read in the Economist, the Diesel-Hyrbid actually did live up to its claims - you are right though, they were pricey.

Oh well, it's like BMD, you can't strike it off as impossible because of initial failures....

 

[daniel h.]

As for freeing America from needing oil from unstable states, Canada has a trillion barrels of heavy oil (tar sands), which in the short run is more practical than trying to change the entire industreal and transportation infrastructure of the US. I have added a few comments in italics.

It's not our job to feed America's gluttonous appetite for oil so that the average person with an I.Q. of 80 can drive a Chevy Avalance to the corner store.

Canada should not have ever let foreign companies own over   50% of our oil. NAFTA must be scrapped so we can control our own oil wealth and energy security. We now supply 66% of our oil production to the U.S. as mandated by NAFTA at 66 cents to the dollar. It's a joke. How can any Canadian with any self-respect talk about "securing America's energy". Even Canada is a net-importer. Ontario, Quebec get oil from Venezuela.

We don't owe the U.S. anything.

MOD EDIT: keep it clean folks

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

danial h,........  PM incoming.

 

[Cloud Cover]

You guys with all this talk of fuel efficiency are making me feel bad, I'm trading in the Jetta TDI in for an 8cyl. Tahoe.

 

[a_majoor]

Canada should not have ever let foreign companies own over  50% of our oil. NAFTA must be scrapped so we can control our own oil wealth and energy security. We now supply 66% of our oil production to the U.S. as mandated by NAFTA at 66 cents to the dollar. It's a joke. How can any Canadian with any self-respect talk about "securing America's energy". Even Canada is a net-importer. Ontario, Quebec get oil from Venezuela.

We don't owe the U.S. anything.

I would be interested to see the paragraph in the NAFTA agreement which says that. Please post the reference for the rest of us.

I would also state we don't "owe" anyone anything, but since we have a marketable resource, why not market it and reap the benefits. I certainly would like to see a lot more money get spent on education..... >

 

[daniel h.]

I would be interested to see the paragraph in the NAFTA agreement which says that. Please post the reference for the rest of us.

I would also state we don't "owe" anyone anything, but since we have a marketable resource, why not market it and reap the benefits. I certainly would like to see a lot more money get spent on education..... >

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050217.webcolaxer16/BNStory/National/

Canada currently produces about 40 per cent more oil than it consumes and so should not have to worry about shortages. Yet, because of NAFTA, Canada put itself in as precarious a position as the U.S. in relying on imports of oil from offshore. Canada now exports 70 per cent of its supply to the United States and imports almost 60 per cent of the oil it consumes. The pipeline taking Western Canadian oil from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal was reversed several years ago and now brings imports the other way.

Proportionality favoured the short-term interests of exporting corporations and producing provinces, to the detriment of using Canada's raw resources to make other things, and for long-term energy security for Canadians.

The Mexicans were smart and got an exemption from energy sharing in times of shortage. Look at the respect that exemption got Mexico in the U.S. national energy task force report: "Mexico will make its own sovereign decisions on the breadth, pace, and extent to which it will expand and reform its electricity and oil and gas capacities."

Contrast this with the U.S. NEP report's assessment of Canada: "Canada's deregulated energy sector has become America's largest overall energy trading partner, and our leading foreign supplier of natural gas, oil and electricity."

In a cold, vast country, where energy is essential for life and a functioning economy, citizens take for granted that Canadians should have first call on Canadian energy. Governments ensure Canadians have enough flu shots and expect the same regarding energy supplies.

If Canada is not going to ensure security of oil and gas supply for Canadians, who is? Can we rely on the Americans? Have they secured Canadian interests regarding beef or softwood lumber? Alternatively, can we rely on the market to supply Canadians with energy when we need it? Just think of electrical power deregulation in Ontario and Alberta.

A national energy policy for the U.S. and a continental energy market for Canada is a raw deal for Canada. Instead of further integration with the U.S., what about a Mexican exemption for Canada?

Gordon Laxer is a professor of political economy at the University of Alberta and the director and co-founder of Parkland Institute in Edmonton.

 

[a_majoor]

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050217.webcolaxer16/BNStory/National/

Canada currently produces about 40 per cent more oil than it consumes and so should not have to worry about shortages. Yet, because of NAFTA, Canada put itself in as precarious a position as the U.S. in relying on imports of oil from offshore. Canada now exports 70 per cent of its supply to the United States and imports almost 60 per cent of the oil it consumes. The pipeline taking Western Canadian oil from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal was reversed several years ago and now brings imports the other way.

Proportionality favoured the short-term interests of exporting corporations and producing provinces, to the detriment of using Canada's raw resources to make other things, and for long-term energy security for Canadians.

The Mexicans were smart and got an exemption from energy sharing in times of shortage. Look at the respect that exemption got Mexico in the U.S. national energy task force report: "Mexico will make its own sovereign decisions on the breadth, pace, and extent to which it will expand and reform its electricity and oil and gas capacities."

Contrast this with the U.S. NEP report's assessment of Canada: "Canada's deregulated energy sector has become America's largest overall energy trading partner, and our leading foreign supplier of natural gas, oil and electricity."

What you have just demonstrated is the oil producers are rationaly selling to the market which gives them the biggest return.

I SAY AGAIN: What paragraph or article of the NAFTA agreement compells Canada to sell a fixed percentage of its output at a set price, as you claimed in your earlier post?

 

[daniel h.]

What you have just demonstrated is the oil producers are rationaly selling to the market which gives them the biggest return.

I SAY AGAIN: What paragraph or article of the NAFTA agreement compells Canada to sell a fixed percentage of its output at a set price, as you claimed in your earlier post?

We're giving our oil away at a lower return due to fized prices, zero (0) royalty, and as quickly as possible, even though oil is likely to increase in value, not decrease. I'll post the NAFTA requirements when I find them. I'm busy for a few hours. No need to be belligerent.

 

[a_majoor]

Supply and demand:

The Growth-Driven Oil-Price Increase
Not an economy choker.

By Victor A. Canto and Samir Ghia

The surge in oil prices has managed to grab the market's attention. Some analysts worry that higher oil prices, acting like a new tax on the economy, could choke the recovery and drive us into recession. But the correlation between oil prices and the economy depends on the nature of the oil shock. And in a way, this oil shock is good natured.

Implicitly, some analysts assume that today's higher oil prices are the result of a supply shock. In theory, a reduction in supply leads to a movement along the demand curve that results in a higher price and lower output. However, a shift in supply is not the only source of a commodity-price increase. A demand shift can also produce a higher price, yet the effect on output is very different.

Over the last few quarters, there has been a positive correlation between the rise in oil prices and real growth of gross domestic product in the U.S. The timing of the surge between the two is quite telling. It suggests that the oil-price hike is demand driven â ” which leads to a much different conclusion than the one worried analysts are making.

Backing up this argument is the broader correlation between real GDP growth and the growth of commodities overall. For a while now both have been spiking higher, lending further support to the view that the oil-price increase is growth driven.

And who are the culprits in this growth-driven oil spike? In large part, the U.S., China, and India are to blame, even though each is benefiting from the current set of economic circumstances.

The rise in oil prices will produce several outcomes. It will increase the incentives to produce more energy â ” from oil-related or alternative sources â ” while also crowding out slower-growing countries from the energy markets. For the slow-growers, demand is not growing as fast, and higher energy prices will have a negative impact on their real GDP growth rate. Countries like Japan are among those at risk. Not surprisingly, such economies have not fared well in the high-energy-price, high-commodity-price environment.

Last year the financial press spoke of a $10 terrorist risk premium imbedded in the price of oil. Judging from the Iraqi election results and other positive changes taking place in the Middle East, one can argue that the world has become a safer place. If the terrorist risk premium were the true source of the oil-price increase we would be seeing lower, not higher, prices.

No â ” today's rising oil prices are the result of global economic expansion. This is good news: Rising oil prices caused by an increase in demand cannot cause a recession. In fact the opposite is quite true: A recession would lead to lower oil prices.

The Federal Reserve and inflation worriers in general should take note of all this. Inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, and higher growth produces lower inflation, not higher inflation. Hence, the growth-driven oil-price increase will lead to a boost in supply and eventually lower oil prices.

â ” Victor Canto, Ph.D., is the founder and Samir Ghia a vice president of La Jolla Economics, an economics research and consulting firm in La Jolla, California.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_canto/canto_ghia200503310855.asp

 

[Spartan]

Canada sends over 99% of its crude oil exports to the U.S., and the country is one of the most important sources of U.S. oil imports. During the first eleven months of 2004, Canada exported 1.62 million bbl/d of crude oil to the U.S., the single-largest component of U.S. crude oil imports. Canada also sent some 500,000 bbl/d of petroleum products to the U.S. during this period, the most from a single country. The largest share of U.S.-bound Canadian oil exports (65%) go to the Midwest (PAD District II), with smaller amounts heading to the Rocky Mountains (PAD District IV) and the East Coast (PAD District I).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html#oil
and the fact that 65%+ of Oil companies operating in Canada are foreign (read American) owned and operated.
Plus the requirements in NAFTA for us to not maintain such stringent ownership rules (ie majority (even at 50%) to be Canadian.
I, as well have heard the arguement that we are bound to ship oil to the US under NAFTA - from Very right wing academic profs to boot - will try and find source as well to substantiate.

 

[daniel h.]

there isn't any paragraph in NAFTA with that provision.......just a bunch garbage he is spewing.  

Ah, now I get slandered by the directing staff. Lovely leadership. Why don't you give yourself a warning?


NAFTA has a "national treament clause". Because American companies already own more than 50% of our oil, they are now allowed to exploit it as quickly as they see fit. Basically, they get our oil at that percentage (66%)  because that is how much they already own, and NAFTA prevents us from regaining control, with some new sort of NEP.

No conspiracies. Here is the NAFTA secretariat, chapter 6. I will post the exemption Mexico obtained, which Canada did not obtain:


PART TWO: TRADE IN GOODS

Chapter Six: Energy and Basic Petrochemicals

Article 601: Principles
Article 602: Scope and Coverage
Article 603: Import and Export Restrictions
Article 604: Export Taxes
Article 605: Other Export Measures
Article 606: Energy Regulatory Measures
Article 607: National Security Measures
Article 608: Miscellaneous Provisions
Article 609: Definitions


Annex 602.3: Reservations and Special Provisions
Annex 603.6: Exception to Article 603
Annex 605: Exception to Article 605
Annex 607: National Security
Annex 608.2: Other Agreements

Exception to Article 603
For only those goods listed below, Mexico may restrict the granting of import and export licenses for the sole purpose of reserving foreign trade in these goods to itself.


2707.50
Other aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures of which 65 percent or more by volume (including losses) distills at 250 C by the ASTM D 86 method.

2707.99
Rubber extender oils, solvent naphtha and carbon black feedstocks only.

2709
Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, crude.

2710
Aviation gasoline; gasoline and motor fuel blending stocks (except aviation gasoline) and reformates when used as motor fuel lending stocks; kerosene; gas oil and diesel oil; petroleum ether; fuel oil; paraffinic oils other than for lubricating purposes; pentanes; carbon black feedstocks; hexanes; heptanes and naphthas.

2711
Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons other than: ethylene, propylene, butylene and butadiene, in purities over 50 percent.

2712.90
Only paraffin wax containing by weight more than 0.75 percent of oil, in bulk (Mexico classifies these goods under HS 2712.90.02) and only when imported to be used for further refining.

2713.11
Petroleum coke not calcined.

2713.20
Petroleum bitumen (except when used for road surfacing purposes under HS 2713.20.01).

2713.90
Other residues of petroleum oils or of oils obtained from bituminous minerals.

2714
Bitumen and asphalt, natural; bituminous or oil shale and tar sands, asphaltites and asphaltic rocks (except when used for road surfacing purposes under HS 2714.90.01).

2901.10
Ethane, butanes, pentanes, hexanes, and heptanes only.




Annex 605
Exception to Article 605
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, the provisions of Article 605 shall not apply as between the other Parties and Mexico.



Annex 607
National Security
1. Article 607 shall impose no obligations and confer no rights on Mexico.

2. Article 2102 (National Security) shall apply as between Mexico and the other Parties.



Annex 608.2
Other Agreements
1. Canada and the United States shall act in accordance with the terms of Annexes 902.5 and 905.2 of the Canada United States Free Trade Agreement, which are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement for such purpose. This paragraph shall impose no obligations and confer no rights on Mexico.

2. Canada and the United States intend no inconsistency between this Chapter and the Agreement on an International Energy Program (IEP). In the event of any inconsistency between the IEP and this Chapter, the IEP shall prevail as between Canada and the United States to the extent of that inconsistency.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=124

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I don't see your idea anywhere there, maybe I'm just not bright enough?

...and I noticed something today, Alberta is now debt-free[or has the money set aside for bills that aren't due yet, collecting interest] from "giving" that oil away.
If you research a little you will find that the reason the oil from Alberta doesn't flow out here past Windsor is it's cheaper and safer to transport it from the ME than pipeline it[with losses/upkeep] all the way from the West.
We are a large country.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm still waiting for the explanation why the US gets a special deal on Canadian oil, too.  All NAFTA has done is put oil out there as a freely traded commodity.  Recent and continuing increases in demand will continue to push oil prices up, which will tend to increase opportunities for oil extraction in Canada.

>Proportionality favoured the short-term interests of exporting corporations and producing provinces, to the detriment of using Canada's raw resources to make other things, and for long-term energy security for Canadians.

I can see where people go wrong in their reasoning.  They operate from an implied assumption that Canada should extend preferential treatment to itself for the consumption of its own resources, instead of letting those resources be traded freely and forcing Canadians to pay the market prices to obtain the required Canadian "share".  However, not paying free market prices is merely another way of placing in partial servitude those who provide the goods, including the workers in the oil fields.  If you want oil, you have to pay workers to extract and refine it.  So, you go to them and explain why their wages are to be set artificially low for the good of Canadians.  In fact, I would prefer that unionized public service employees with low risks of industrial injury, who work in comfortable climate-controlled offices year round, who enjoy excellent pay and benefits and generally enviable job security, explain one-to-one and face-to-face to oil industry workers why the latter must settle for less and continue to contribute taxes which provide the public service revenue stream.

There is also "what is unseen" - that in seizing long-term energy security, we might have to compromise long-term overall economic security at the hands of trading partners who can reciprocate with other commodities.

No offence, but the word "fools" is not too strong for protectionists.

 

[daniel h.]

I know I am not the sharpest bit on the oil rig, but I didn't read anything about being required to sell oil to the US at below market rates?

As for slandering, you sir, are way off target!   It is you who came on the site flailing around with you vast right wing american conspiracies, I am still waiting for my cheap oil from the middle east let alone central alberta!   Get a grip.........

No offence intended, but how is it a conspiracy? Our oil is over 60% foreign-owned. No other developed country allows that. Norway has the highest standard of living in the world, stayed out of the E.U., and we don't even get oil royalties, according to David Orchard, another guy some love to hate. I'll try to find documentation of that.

Alberta would have much more for themselves and Canada if we charged a royalty.

 

[daniel h.]

I'm still waiting for the explanation why the US gets a special deal on Canadian oil, too.   All NAFTA has done is put oil out there as a freely traded commodity.   Recent and continuing increases in demand will continue to push oil prices up, which will tend to increase opportunities for oil extraction in Canada.

>Proportionality favoured the short-term interests of exporting corporations and producing provinces, to the detriment of using Canada's raw resources to make other things, and for long-term energy security for Canadians.

I can see where people go wrong in their reasoning.   They operate from an implied assumption that Canada should extend preferential treatment to itself for the consumption of its own resources, instead of letting those resources be traded freely and forcing Canadians to pay the market prices to obtain the required Canadian "share".   However, not paying free market prices is merely another way of placing in partial servitude those who provide the goods, including the workers in the oil fields.   If you want oil, you have to pay workers to extract and refine it.   So, you go to them and explain why their wages are to be set artificially low for the good of Canadians.   In fact, I would prefer that unionized public service employees with low risks of industrial injury, who work in comfortable climate-controlled offices year round, who enjoy excellent pay and benefits and generally enviable job security, explain one-to-one and face-to-face to oil industry workers why the latter must settle for less and continue to contribute taxes which provide the public service revenue stream.

There is also "what is unseen" - that in seizing long-term energy security, we might have to compromise long-term overall economic security at the hands of trading partners who can reciprocate with other commodities.

No offence, but the word "fools" is not too strong for protectionists.

But protectionism does help most of the population in many people's view. I think NAFTA is working perfectly for those who created it. It created a North American energy market--that is, America gets Canada's oil, Canada gets.....nothing we need from America. We can buy oranges from other countries.


Oh yeah, forgot to ask, does that make the United States a bunch of fools? They are very protectionist--well under 10% foreign ownership and very supportive of their industries.....

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
America gets Canada's oil, Canada gets.....nothing

....yea, money is nothing, I guess.
I just went through your posts and see that out of 54 almost everyone is in the "political" section and contains some dig at the US. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable at some other more political based website, cause a whole lot of people smarter than I are tearing all your "arguments" to shreds and still you come back bloodied and offer .....nothing.