Ken H. asked about foreign ownership of oil in Canada.
According to StatsCan, foreign control of 'energy' industries (I assume
this covers oil, gas and hydro) in Canada was 19.8% by assets in 1997, down
from 23.2% in 1989 when 'free' trade came into effect. (When measured by
revenues foreign control is up slightly, from 32.4% to 33.7%.) The US
accounts for about 70% of the foreign share.
The most recent figures I have for the petroleum sector (upstream and
downstream) are for 1988, when the foreign share of revenues was 59.6%; the
foreign share of assets would be lower. In the 1970s foreign control of
petroleum was over 90%.
The government regulatory agency here in BC just approved an approximate
25% increase in gas rates on top of another recent large increase, blaming
the rise in US prices. But I disagree with Ken H. that the gas hikes should
be attributed to NAFTA as this lets Canadian corporations and governments
and capitalism in general off the hook. Also, it is not quite true that
'Canada' can't say 'no' to the US - energy export volumes to the US can be
reduced each year by up to a certain percentage of the current year's
exports (I seem to remember 15%, but that may be wrong).
Bill Burgess
At 12:20 PM 07/07/00 -0500, you wrote:
>High prices are not beneficial to Canadian consumers. They benefit energy
>producers many of whom are US multinationals. There is an ongoing battle
>between ranchers and oil and gas producers. A recent bill in the ALberta
>legislature allows the government to end ranch leases of public land and turn
>them over to oil and gas developers just like that. It also channels royalties
>to the provincial governments rather than to the municipalities where the gas
>and oil wells are located. These municipalities are often sparsely populated
>with very low tax bases. However, representatives of rancher groups and
>gas and
>oil developers seem to be working out some compromise. The bill will no doubt
>be amended and regulations will involve a compromise. The original terms
>though
>show the stripes (Stars an Stripes) of the Alberta government. Alberta is one
>of the richest and most reactionary Canadian provinces. It is an extension of
>Texas to the north.
> My main point is that it would make sense to have a national policy as we
>did under Trudeau that developed energy resources in the first instance so as
>to benefit Canadians. Trudeau was hated by ALbertans. He nationalised a
>big oil
>player Petro-Can. Of course now it is privatised again. Why should we sign an
>agreement that forces us to sell energy at the same price if we export it
>as we
>charge internally?
> I tried to check out the percentage of foreign ownership of oil but
>couldn't find it. Perhaps Paul Phillips has the data at hand. I have no
>idea of
>the environmental impact of the exploration. Ranchers have complained about
>messes oil companies have left etc. and about the meagre compensation they
>get.
>But perhaps others know more about this. Alberta range land is not exactly as
>biodiverse as Amazon Rain forest. I am not sure how fragile it is.
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
> > Ken wrote:
> > >The posts show that Canada has a shortage of natural gas and higher prices
> > >because of NAFTA.
> >
> > At first blush, a high 'gas' price would be as beneficial to Canada as a
> > high oil price is to OPEC, but who is capturing the scarcity rents implied
> > by this higher gas price? is the higher gas price encouraging
> > environmentally-destructive seeking of new natural gas sources?
> >
> > BTW, could someone remind me of why deregulation of electrical power in the
> > US (or rather, the type of deregulation implemented) has led to rapid
> > increases in electricity prices in San Diego and "rolling brown-outs" in
> > San Francisco?
> >
> > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
