Snow toured an oilsands plant and the booming city of Fort McMurray with Finance Minister Ralph Goodale before leaving for Calgary, where he met with Goodale and oil executives.
Canada is the leading foreign energy supplier to the U.S., with oil, gas and electricity sales worth more than $50-billion a year, Goodale said recently.
"Within this coming decade, these Canadian sources of supply have the potential to alter the world's geopolitics because North American energy security will be potentially more manageable on and within this continent itself. That could be very good for both of us," he told a New York audience on June 24.
"I still think it's not necessarily that well known how much of a resource we have here and what the potential is," Mike Glennon, executive director of the Regional Issues Working Group in Fort McMurray, told Fort McMurray Today.
"The only way to get a true sense of the scale of the operation is eyes, is to see it first hand."
Goodale's message was delivered just as the U.S. was becoming increasingly concerned about China's energy ambitions in light of the $18.5-billion US offer by CNOOC Ltd., a Chinese government-owned company, for Unocal Corp.
The offer to purchase the U.S. oil and gas company has raised concerns about U.S. energy security.
At the same time, Chinese government companies have made three recent investments in Alberta energy businesses, including two in the oilsands.
On April 13, CNOOC paid $160 million to buy into privately held Meg Energy Corp, which plans to produce 25,000 barrels of crude a day from the Christina Lake project.
It contains 4.8 billion barrels of bitumen, of which two billion barrels is recoverable, the company said on its website.
On May 31, Synopec, controlled by China, paid about $150 million for 40 per cent of the Northern Lights Project in Fort McMurray.
Controlled by oilsands company Synenco, Northern Lights aims to produce 100,000 barrels a day with an investment of $4.5-billion over five years.
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on July 10, 2005]
Note: http://www.cbc.ca/story...
Uncle Sam Eyes Canada's Prize
Posted on Friday, July 08 at 20:19 by notacolony.caContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
Are we a nation of mentally-challenged people? We hold the trump card, yet we are more than willing to give it away. Making nice is demeaning and in the end, it will takes us absolutely nowhere.
---
Vera Gottlieb
in answer to the rhetorical Q;Are we a nation of mentally-challenged people?
yup! and the scarry part is those who think they are the brightest ain't
Y a see the ing about us "undereducated folks" like me is we don't have years of univercity brain washing to contend with. and yaaaas I do have a love hate relationship with those from academe
We are not so much mentally challenged by stupidity as by programming,
I see passion backed belief laddled our here as though it is handed down from on high and yet as wellconstructed the the sentence paragraph and chapters are it is still tightly wrapped around existing paradigms.
We are reactive to strategy putin place and motion decades ago
Visit any site on the net and see the same thing/
I know i have sparked interest in a few folks cause they have told me so but the "educated ones"-nope their investment in who they believe them selved to be gets in the way
ah wtf I do what and when I can
Keep postin, VG!
---
Always be tolerant with those who disagree with you. After all, they have a perfect right to their ridiculous opinions-
unknown
Uncle Sam eyes Canaduhs prize/ Well ai't tha sumpin?
this little bit here wasn't a clue was it now?
"Many Americans in the early 1800s believed that it was the destiny of America to control all of the North American continent. This belief was called "Manifest Destiny." The term originated from a New York newspaper editorial of December 27, 1845, which declared that the nation's manifest destiny was "to over spread and to possess" the whole continent, to develop liberty and self-government to all. In the eyes of the Americans, it meant that it was God's will that Americans expand their territory from coast to coast."
Sinse the 1800's eh?
So they didn't just wake up yesterday, Rub their greedy little hands together and get a few of the boys from around the cracker barell and ponder the yonder vast expanse of their northerly suckers ( OOPS Neighbours ) and start to wonder if there was more than beaver pelts and snow up here.
---
Always be tolerant with those who disagree with you. After all, they have a perfect right to their ridiculous opinions-
unknown
---
"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va
"...In the 1850s, having established itself as a transcontinental empire, the United States ceased to regard British activities in the western hemisphere with alarm. Preoccupied with the increasingly bitter sectional conflict over slavery, many Americans rejected Manifest Destiny. Although southern extremists would sponsor filibuster expeditions into Latin America with the objective of gaining new lands to extend the slave empire, the expansionist movement faded from the national agenda in the years prior to the outbreak of the Civil War..."
Dogman, why don't you read a little history? Nobody expects you to understand it, but couldn't you at least appreciate the lack of concern for Canada by the USA from the 1850's onwards?
Nowadays, canucks are only busy looking for the highest bidder. Chinese, American. Makes no difference: canucks will turn their counry into toxic waste for anyone.
Welcome back! Good to see you back!
---
Always be tolerant with those who disagree with you. After all, they have a perfect right to their ridiculous opinions-
unknown
This story kinda asks the question;What is the point of getting an education?
<br />
Thanks Ed. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Mungerdemocracy.html">http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Mungerdemocracy.html</a><br />
The U.S. is Not a Democracy <br />
None of this was news to the American founders. Elections helped citizens control elected officials, and little more. This early skepticism is plain, as in this passage from Federalist #10: <br />
…a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. <br />
America is a federal republic, with horizontal separation of powers among executive, legislature, and judiciary, and vertical separation of powers between the central government and the states. The Declaration of Independence is straightforward: the American system is based on the claim that all citizens have rights, and "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…" That means that elections are still important. We need elections, literally depend on them to make the whole system work. But elections are not the ends of government, just the means by which citizens can withhold consent. <br />
The problem is that the rules, procedures, and the basic "machinery" of electoral choice as a means have not kept up with the faith people seem to have in democracy as an end. We try to divine the will of the people, their "intent," on complex questions. Who can forget Florida in 2000, where officials held ballots over their heads, trying to see light through partially detached bits of cardstock chads? <br />
Elections cannot work this way, not in a nation four times zones wide (not even counting Alaska or Hawaii). Even though in other aspects of our lives we demand instant information, electoral fairness requires that the states withhold information until all the polls are closed. Voting precincts must sacrifice efficiency (which new paperless voting technologies would appear to offer) for legitimacy, where paper receipts are available and where recounts involve actual physical checks of ballots, one by one. <br />
But you knew about this problem, which is mostly technical. I am trying to argue that there is a different problem, at least as important: we don't just demand too little of our democratic procedures, we are expecting too much of our democratic process. The educational system in the U.S. has failed students, because we don't know the limits of unlimited democratic choice. We teach that consensus as a value in itself, even though we know that true consensus appears only in dictatorships or narrowly defined decisions. As James Buchanan, Kenneth Arrow, and a host of public choice scholars have shown, groups cannot be thought to have preferences in the same way that individuals do. To put it another way, it is perfectly possible, and legitimate, for reasonable people to disagree. The role of democracy is not to banish disagreement, but rather to prevent political disagreements from devolving into armed conflict. <br />
But then in what sense does government depend on "the consent of the governed"? The American system seems cumbersome, but it combines the notion of a republic, where policy choice is indirect, with separation of powers of legislation, where an overlapping consensus is required. A majority of the population is required to pass the House, but a majority in a majority of the states is required to pass the Senate. Then the President, whose constituency is the entire nation, must separately consent before the bill becomes law. The result is far removed from "democracy," but the system does ensure the fundamental democratic principle: government can't do things to us unless we the governed give our consent. Elections are a check on tyranny, not a conjuring of the will of the people.<br />
<p>---<br>Always be tolerant with those who disagree with you. After all, they have a perfect right to their ridiculous opinions-<br />
unknown<br />