BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....

Subject: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:42 PM

I learned something today.

The country from which the US buys most of its oil imports is not Iran, not Saudi Arabia, not Norway, not Venezula, not Mexico, but Canada.

Yup. 17% of the oil imported into the US comes from our northern neighbor (or in this case, neighbour).

Another interesting thing is that in 2004, the US was world's third largest producer of crude oil, being outproduced only by Saudia Arabia (#1) and Russia (#2).

By the way, this data came from the oil industry....

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:49 PM

Well, for those of us in the northern tier states bordering Canada, this news is no surprise. However, what we can't quite figure out is why the "hurricane oil crises" in the Gulf of Mexico causes the price of our oil and gas to leap upward 20 cents/gallon in a single day. I mean, none of our energy comes from that region--not natural gas or oil/gasoline. Our supplies for those commodities are steady and secure, coming as they do from Canada and the western US.

So why the leap in prices? I believe it is known as profiteering...price gouging...

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Peace
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:50 PM

What's new?

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:58 PM

You're welcome, Rapaire.

Its not often we hears a thank-you from the U.S.

We know alot of our energy goes South and that is one of the reasons we insist on fair trade in regard to our softwood lumber, beef and fish. It would be great if we can continue to be trading partners and hopefully that means honouring our trade agreements.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:24 PM

I knew this allready and am thankfull... Wish we had a real ebergy policy so we wouldn't be wastion' so much of it heatin' Boss HJog's McMansions and bein' burnt up in Boss Hog's play SUV's...

But thanks, none the less...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Elmer Fudd
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:53 PM

Rap, ain't you in Canada?

Still, thanks for the heads-up. I'll be thinking about y'all up there as I bomb down Riverside Drive in Rancho Cucamonga in my big ol' bitchin' Hummer on the way to my Kabbalah class, mocha frappuccino in one hand and cell phone in in the other, over which my personal coach reminds me that an "attitude of gratitude" is gonna bring me all kindsa of reeeaaally good karma. (He's in Palm Springs, drivin' his big ol' bitchin' SUV, air conditioner blasting to the max. He thanks you too.) Just keep that oil flowing south. We suuurre know how to put it to good use.

E-e-elmer

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 10:13 PM

I'm in Canada only if Idaho slipped off northward. Or if Alberta slid a bit southward.

Elmer, iffen yer in Rancho Cucamonga you have my deepest, most hearfelt sympathy. In fact, it borders right on pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: GUEST,the people of Canada
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 10:37 PM

Your welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 12:32 AM

Imposter!

If you were the People of Canada, you would have politely thanked him for the money they send back in return.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: open mike
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 12:40 AM

too bad so much of the petroleum is burned up generating electricity
and producing plastic products.

I see the real or imagined shortage being used as a scare tactic to
allow more nuclear power plants to be created.

i hear there may be only enough oil to last til 2020-2025--20 or 25 years and we will HAVE to find an alternative...why not start now??!!

with re-newable sources--solar, wind, hydro.

oh, yes, and thanks for the maple syrup, too!

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Gurney
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 05:37 AM

On the other side of the Pacific Ocean, out fuel went up by 50%. We were given to understand that it was because New Orleans was the major port for a lot of American oil, and the spot price went up because of panic buying.
Believe that if you like. The oil companies are a cartel, which seems to be like a monopoly, only sneakier, in that they pretend to be in competition with each other.


Open Mike, your post tickled my sense of humour. "Back the maingib, Mr. Mate, and swing her into the McDonalds carpark!"

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 08:57 AM

I don't object to nuclear (i.e., fission) power -- IF there is no alternative. I just wish that the world would get off its thumb and come up with a viable fusion reactor.

Oh, yeah, and thanks Canada for all the yellowcake!

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 11:19 AM

Think of the oil market like a balloon. Total production and total demand are what matter. If the Saudis decided not to sell us oil we would buy it somewhere else, like squeezing one side of the balloon.

If you let out air (or oil production anywhere), it affects everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 11:34 AM

Well, as it is estimated that Canada will run out of natural gas in 8.6 years from current conventional reserves at today's production rate, enjoy it while you've got it people.

The next major sources from this country will be from the Canadian Arctic shelf and the pristine coast of BC, when the moratorium on drilling for oil and gas is lifted by our current government.

These supplies will come with a lot more ecological baggage but they might delay the percieved need to drill in the Alaska wildlife refuge. Why bother with the sturm und drang of drilling in Alaska, when Canadians will gladly take it up the ass for a few extra sheckles.

Sadly, it is probably the estimated 40 odd trillion cf of natural gas off the west coast here (not even counting oil) and also the production from coal gas reserves, that is hampering any serious thoughts about developing alternative energy sources such as tidal/wind and hydro on this coast.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 11:41 AM

And if you think Katrina and Rita have caused a glitch in supplies, watch what will happen when the really "big one" that is overdue finally goes off on this coast.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 12:14 PM

You also have a GODzillion amount of oil sand and shale as well in Canada/US.


plenty of oil

And who knows, maybe the technology will come where we can extract more than 50% of the oil from current wells.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 12:32 PM

Makes you happier than a pig in shit, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 12:35 PM

Woo Hoo!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 12:46 PM

I don't know how Canada's oil producers are doing but in the US we ain't hurtin'. If by us, you mean those of us who have lots of stock in oil.

Happy Days are Here Again

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 12:53 PM

Its funny when the Chinese tried to buy Unocal, there was a big fuss in the states, and yet no one in Canada peeps when US companies buy up Canadian energy companies (like Terasen Gas). Part of the Nafta agreement was that the US has access to cheap Canadian oil. Of course the US totally ignored all the latest NAFTA rulings on softwood lumber
(from which it has collected 5billion in duties that NAFTA says it should return) The US says it wont return it and that it wont abide by the NAFTA rulings.   
Well like the former Prime Minister CHretien said, the US can burn softwood for energy...

When Pierre Trudeau established the National Energy policy 25 years ago
there was major bickering by Americans. But of course it is no different that keeping UNOcal away from the CHinese and maintaining a 700million barrel strategic reserve..

Its time we slapped an export duty on canadian oil, to offset the illegal lumber duty imposed by the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 01:02 PM

Stock in oil...

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 01:38 PM

"The US says it wont return it and that it wont abide by the NAFTA rulings." Guest/ petr   

In so many words, petr? Any links?

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 01:40 PM

I do love a good pun, or, a bad one.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 02:17 PM

Watching the dipping of livestock is an amazing experience, traumatic in the anticipation for the individuals but so quickly over that one can only wish there were such quick fixes for all the ills of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Elmer Fudd
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 02:23 PM

Hey Rap, sorry for mislocating your domicile. As fer as I know, Idaho isn't slippin' and a-slidin, peepin' and a-hidin', unlike Rancho Cucamonga, which is situated near the San Andreas Fault. Naw, I ain't nowhere near that beknighted place. I lifted it from an old Jan and Dean song as a hellhole where folks like Ahnold who drive gas-guzzling Hummers while sippin' ecologically correct wheatgrass juice and thinking karmically correct thoughts of gratitude for Canada might hang their hypocritical little chapeaus.

E-e-elmer

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 03:16 PM

Here, Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 03:44 PM

Thanks, Metchosin. From the link:

"NAFTA has brought a wave of economic progress unprecedented in our times, but increasing trade protectionism is putting those benefits at risk," Winter said in a news release Monday.

"He called on chambers in all 50 states to urge Bush to respect its obligations under NAFTA and move quickly to a negotiated settlement on softwood.

"Canadian politicians and forest industry executives have been in an uproar since U.S. trade officials indicated earlier this month they would not comply with a final NAFTA appeal. It found Canadian lumber imports into the United States posed no threat of injury to American producers.

"The Canadians believe the ruling removes the justification for punitive duties imposed in May 2002 after U.S. mill owners filed their fourth trade complaint in two decades claiming Canadian softwood is subsidized. (* See below)

"U.S. Customs has collected more than $5 billion in duties so far, at a current rate of $100 million a month.

"Canada suspended negotiations after the American decision to ignore the ruling. "

* So, you are saying that Canadian softwood production is NOT subsidized? A couple of things come to mind in connection with this complaint. One is that political things rarely have only one side to them.

On the one hand, Canada values NAFTA as having "brought a wave of economic progress unprecedented in our times..."

On another hand, Canada is owed the return of $5 billion in duties that the US has collected on the basis of the belief that Canada's softwood industry is unfairly subsidized.

It may well be that Canada will eventually satisfy the US as to its allegedly unfair practices, in which case Canada's industry should be repaid the duties. If Canada does NOT satisfy the US on the matter, I can see that the US may well continue levying the duties.

Do I understand the matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 05:06 PM

Apparantly not Ebbie.

The NAFTA agreement includes methods of arbitrating and settling disputes. There is an agreed upon definition in NAFTA of a subsidy and an agreed upon, signed, contract between Canada and the US on how to settle these disputes. According to NAFTA, Canadian softwood lumber is not subsadised. The Congress ratified NAFTA but now that numerous NAFTA panels have found against them, they are choosing to ignore it.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 08:26 PM

Exactly;
the Americans do not want to abide by the agreed upon system of settling disputes under the Nafta agreement. The last 5 Nafta panel rulings (made up of both Canadians and Americans) have ruled that the US side has not proven any damaging effect on the US lumber industry and that they do not have the right to put duties on Canadian lumber that duties should be returned. The Americans have balked at this and
suggest that Canada come to the table and NEGOTIATE an agreement
(essentially outside of Nafta). According to WTO Canada has now the right to invoke retaliatory duties.

(Im surprised you asked for links, because this has been the news in Canada for years, but it probably gets very little coverage in the US,
one does not have to search much though..

The issue of softwood lumber goes back well over a 100 years.
Canadian lumber comes primarily from crown land.
US lumber comes primarily from private land, and Americans claim
that the stumpage fee paid to the crown is below market value.

(Actually the issue is more complex, as the companies actually had to develop and maintain logging roads as well as re-plant logged areas.)
Also throughout the last 25 years or so, Canadian sawmills have spent quite a lot of money upgrading, and the Canadian dollar was quite low compared to the US dollar, so US lumber producers found it very difficult to compete (they hadnt upgraded).

If the US does not abide by NAFTA, one of the key agreements of NAFTA was access to Canadian oil, (Even Mexico refused to agree to this for its oil) Canada can establish its own strategic reserve and slap on a tariff on oil and gas exported to the US. (China would be quite happy to get some of it instead.)

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 09:42 PM

I'm quite sure that America would prefer that Canada privatize its forest land base, instead of the current method of retaining the forests as a public trust and collecting fees for its use to benefit all citizens of Canada. Come on, sell all that land to the US, we're going to own all your asses eventually, why make a fuss? And if we can't own and control your country's resources......we have proven ways of dealing with that...

Weyerhauser and the like, would probably prefer to own the forests in Canada, rather than pay stumpage fees on land which they are granted use of under license. Too much goddam socialism here for American tastes. The idea of publically held resources for the benefit of all its citizens, rather than a few wealthy stockholders, like the practice of medicare, seems to be an alien concept to a lot of Americans. Except when it comes to raising armies.

IMO they hammer on about stumpage fees and subsidies, because they would prefer to eliminate the "inconvenient" middle man, the Canadian public.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 09:51 PM

But Canada has aaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllll them trees...I been there and I've seen 'em. Why, if we could clearcut it, Vancouver Island alone could supply the lumber needs of the US for, oh, five or six years. And what do Canadians need trees for anyway? Beavers? They can just let the US have 'em and we could sell 'em back as lumber, prepared by good old American know-how. Pay 'em back for all that asbestos that came from Thetford Mines that cost the American companies so much money. Canadians never did tell us what that could do, and Canada wasn't even a party in the lawsuits and should have been....

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 10:03 PM

You're too late in askin' if you want to clear cut Vancouver Island, Rapaire, at least the southern part. Mr. Peabody has already hauled it away.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 03:47 AM

"Canadian lumber comes primarily from crown land. US lumber comes primarily from private land, and Americans claim that the stumpage fee paid to the crown is below market value." petr

Ah. Like I said, an issue seldom has only one side.

"(Actually the issue is more complex, as the companies actually had to develop and maintain logging roads as well as re-plant logged areas.)" petr

Ya think US companies don't have to do that? I come from a timber state (Oregon) and I've hiked many a mile of logging roads. And Oregon law requires the replanting of virtually all cut lands.

"Also throughout the last 25 years or so, Canadian sawmills have spent quite a lot of money upgrading, and the Canadian dollar was quite low compared to the US dollar, so US lumber producers found it very difficult to compete (they hadnt upgraded)." petr

And you are quite certain of that?

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 06:59 AM

As usual, the Bush supporters, with their magnificent grasp of geopolitical developments, are out of touch with reality.

There may be a lot of oil sand and shale in Canada, but Rare Lamb's smug (dare I say stupid?) complacency is unjustified.

The US is not Canada's only customer. Guess who?--China--has recently bought approximately a 44% interest in a Canadian firm which deals with Canadian oil sand and shale. Fascinating article in a recent Congressional Quarterly spelling out the Bush administration's brilliant success in being outmaneuvered all over the world in the contest for oil. Particularly vivid is the clash between the Bush alleged democratization push and the US increasing thirst for oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 08:31 AM

...the Bush alleged democratization push...

Geez, I thought Canada WAS a democracy, at least of sorts (there's that Queen and all).

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 12:26 PM

Who cares if a chinese firm buys a us or canadien firm? If they are pumping oil then they are increasing the size of the balloon in my previous example. It doesnt matter who is buying or selling, just that there are buyers and sellers. It's a commodity product for crying out loud.

All of this government intervention makes my head spin....yowsers. If the Canadiens want to subsidize xyz industry, I don't care. All that means is that the Canadien taxpayers are paying Americans to by xyz product.

We should unilaterally get rid of subsidies and all trade barriers (to be fair most trade barriers are low or non existent).

Let's take a look at the nuts and bolts of comparative advantage. Let us assume there is country A and country B. Let us also assume that they both produce W and Z in these quantities before trade:

   A    B
W 10    20
Z 20    50

So in a year A can produce either 10 W, 20 Z, or some combination.

As you can see B is more productive in producing both products than A. Can B still benefit from trade?

So let's say they decide to produce in any given year without trade:
   A    B
W 5    10
Z 10    25

If they specialize and produce:
    A    B
W 10    5
Z 0    50

Then they can trade to get:
    A    B
W   5    10
Z   15   35

Note that A now has 5 more Z and B now has 10 more Z even though B is better at producing both items.

We should get rid of all trade barriers unilaterally!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Metchosin
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:04 AM

Ebbie, I believe Guest Petr mentioned roads because unlike in the US National Forests, logging companies in Canada must build, maintain and dismantle their own roads in order to access timber on crown land, which is another extra cost that occurs here, to put into the equation.

As far as I'm concerned, neither country requires the forest industry to pay its fair share for access to timber. Whether extra revenue for the commercial use of forests comes from increased stumpage fees or just generally insuring that large corporations bear a more equitable share of of the taxation burden as a whole, in the countries where they do business, makes little difference to me.

Corporate welfare is as alive and well in US as it is in ours. I think some concerns regarding the Tongass in your state might be a case in point.

IMO there would be little dispute if the currency of Canada was at par with that of the US. In which case the Canadian lumber would very likely be the more expensive of the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:58 AM

Metch, I've been in Alaska less than 20 years, so I spoke about Oregon's timber industry- logging in the Tongass in Alaska, as far as I'm concerned, is inappropriate in most places (It's a very large forest)and in others is a victim of depressed demand. The US timber industry has to reinvent itself in response to competition and demand.

Oregon, on the other hand, like it or not, to a great degree is tree farming. The mountains and hills are filled with tracts of same age timber stands. I tend not to like it but I understand the compulsion.

One of the worst effects of tree farming is that it is not friendly to wildlife, either mammal or bird. It's like growing broccoli.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Metchosin
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 12:43 PM

We are in agreement there Ebbie, it occurs in this Province on a large scale too. The other problem I see, is one of lack of genetic diversity within monocultures. Because the emphasis is on fast growth, seed is usually selected from a limited number of seed provenences, because the value of the trees is primarily viewed as a commercial product. Change a few variables in the climate and those trees may not necessrily be the best at surviving. And unlike broccoli, there won't be a crop failure over just one year to deal with.

Alaska's transportation costs, like parts of BC, probably figure in a great deal too Ebbie. In BC a lot of small operators are squeezed out as well. There are benefits of scale with huge operations such as Weyerhuser here.

Considering the recent damage from hurricanes, sadly in some ways, I don't think depressed demand will be a continuing issue. Hopefully some of the massive amount of timber that has been damaged by the pine beetle in this province will fill the gap, rather than the healthy stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 01:10 PM

Metchosin accurately said the issue was the low canadian dollar, which makes Canadian lumber more competitive in the US. (and of course there is so much more of it, and as Ebbie pointed out US lumber mostly comes from tree farms - not forests)
From an ecological view I have concerns about clearcutting and the crap that goes on with the lumber industry - such as the fact that in the 50's it was pretty much given away by corrupt govt. ministers. And the tree-planting thats done in one area (and allowed to die) so as to satisfy requirements and be able to log some other area.

But all of that is beside the point anyway, the NAFTA trade agreement
has a dispute resolution mechanism, and the US is simply not abiding by it. The last 5 NAFTA panels have ruled against the US and that process has been exhausted. WTO has said that Canada will be allowed to have retaliatory duties.   OF course (As Trudeau said) its like sleeping with an elephant, any retaliatory duties can endup hurting Canada more.

As far as subsidies go, you might want to look at the US itself..
prior to the 2004 elections the EU were going to slap a duty on US steel because of huge US subsidies, and they targeted key US Swing states for more effect. It worked, the US cut their subsidies and the issue never got much coverage in the States.


Of course the agricultural sector receives huge subsidies but (as Metchosin said) the most heavily subsidized sector in the US is the military industry and there is not one peep from the antigovernment republicans.

While youre at it you might want to look at the history of how the Auto industry encouraged govts. to build highways - while the big automakers went around buing up privately owned tram lines (and the tearing them up). Then they had the benefit of a free road and highway system without having to build anything - unlike the tram companies.
GM and others were found guilty in a trial in the early 50's and like a joke were given a dollar fine each.

Im probably going off topic, but one can take a look at the large companies such as agri-business going from state to state and bargaining for the lowest tax breaks, while state legislatures jump over each other to get them in their state. After a while they move on and go to where theres even a better deal. You can look at this as a form of subsidization.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 01:18 PM

While youre at it you might want to look at the history of how the Auto industry encouraged govts. to build highways - while the big automakers went around buing up privately owned tram lines (and the tearing them up). Then they had the benefit of a free road and highway system without having to build anything - unlike the tram companies.
GM and others were found guilty in a trial in the early 50's and like a joke were given a dollar fine each.

Do you have any more info on this, Perhaps a link? I know some people who would love to read it and some more who would hate to.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Metchosin
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 01:58 PM

Further to monoculture, one just has to look at nature's monoculture, re pine forests in BC and the massive destruction by one pest to realize the impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:32 PM

The record seems clear as to why the rail lines lost when the cross-continental highways came in. It was well planned- never mind that a great deal of highway traffic would be better served on the railroads.

In Southeast Alaska, we have a Marine Highway. Some governmental sorts frequently say that we should build roads instead (avalanche chutes, animal rookeries and aesthetics bedamned) because the ferry system is subsidized by the state rather than paying for itself. The fact that virtually no land highway system pays for itself is ignored.

Proponents of the ocean waterways argue that the answer is better ferry schedules and that we should promote our uniqueness.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 04:06 PM

sorry, Jack the Sailor I dont have a link, Ive read it in Fast Food Nation (by Eric Schlosser) which covers the rise of agri-business over the last century. One chapter is devoted to this topic, but the idea that the big automakers went around and bought up all the tram companies and closed them down in the 30's and 40's to encourage/force people to buy cars is well known. Im sure a quick search can lead to more info.
Petr

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 12:59 PM

I lika the broccoli, I lika choppin broccoli, choppin broccoli, choppin broccoli

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 06:51 PM

Rapaire--

Re: your comment of 8:31 AM 27 Sept: What Bush has against Canada is that Canada is not following his motto, which is, of course, "Confusing and dangerous times demand confusing and dangerous leadership".

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: gnu
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 07:40 PM

Hehehehe. Good one, Ron.

I wonder if, next spring, all Canucks will remember NAFTA and the government that brought it in... 22 cabinet ministers indicted on criminal charges... and, Brian got $1M to drop his case against the federal government for "false charges" in the Air Canada scandal.

Or, do you vote for the other thieves? Better the devil....?

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: kendall
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:23 AM

Maine is the most forested state in the lower 50. We used to be a major producer. Now, under NAFTA, we import finished lumber from Canada. That leaves our own lumbermen out in the cold.
As one example, I have a friend who was a lumberjack. All he knew was how to be a lumberjack. Now, he is unemployed. He has no education and no work.


NAFTA suckes for some people.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: gnu
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 11:50 AM

Kendall... same thing is happening here and it just ain't right. Woods contractors are going under day after day. Do you suppose these politicians are ever gonna sit down and sort out right from wrong? Or are the rich lumber companies squeezing blood out of the little guys with the help of the politicians?

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 12:02 PM

gnu - I think you are right. The "rich lumber companies" in B.C. are multinationals. They lobby the politicians for trade agreements which do not favour workers on either side of the border. Nobody seems to be able to make sense of "free trade".

Under the present agreement, however, the U.S. owes Canada billions of dollars.

If the U.S. does not want to honour "free trade" in one industry, then we shouldn't honour "free trade" in another. Basically, the law should apply across the board or we should abandon it entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 01:53 PM

I don't know if there is such traffic going on nowadays - there doesn't seem to be much logging currently - but a few years back I knew a raft pilot who periodically pushed tremendous rafts of logs north to Haines (I think it was Haines, might have been Yakutat) where the Japanese collected the logs and took them home. I was told that the Japanese had huge stockpiles. The US then bought back the dressed lumber. This was in southeastern Alaska.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: gnu
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 02:26 PM

US bought the dressed from the Japanese? Oh my!!! I wonder who has an interest in the Japanese companies profiting?

Of course, we ship iron ore out of Quebec and Labrador daily to the US and Japan, Korea and others. And our once tremendous steel industry is in dire straights.

Look at refridgerators. For fifty years, we held the patents. We made the units, shipped them to the US, they made the fridges, shipped them back... and we paid a King's ranson for fridges compared to what you could buy them for in the US.

Then, just before the patents ran out... global warming... the ozone layer... ban the refridgerants... ban the refridgerants... and patent the new ones - $$$$. CFC's? Bullshit. The amount of CFC's released in one day from the near surface volcano action near the Hawaiian Islands far exceeds the CFC's realeased from all the refridgeration and foam McDonald's hamburger containers over fifty years. The rich get richer and the poor get screwed.

Oh, BTW... I will say this now and get it over with.... no, I am not a Nobel winning scientist and I will not argue with those who know that global warming is going to kill us all and that it is my fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Thanks, Canada, for the oil....
From: Metchosin
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 03:04 PM

Happens in BC too Ebbie, I have a cousin who booms for Seaspan. Raw logs bound for Japan were leaving here as well. The previous government put a moritorium on the practice, but I wouldn't be surprized if its occurring again. Haven't talked to my cousin about it recently, as it is a touchy subject between the two of us. No matter what you do, it effects someone's livelihood somewhere.

Perhaps the high cost of fuel could restart processing closer to home. But whichever way it goes, you can be damned sure, it is whatever that best serves the greed of the multinationals that will direct the issue.

And if you are wondering where all the yellow cedar went from this coast. The logs are now stockpiled in the ground in Japan for safekeeping.