 | Jamais Cascio: Finding a Little Comfort Fifteen Minutes into the Future | The Oil Drum | Discussion Thread for CNBC's America's Oil Crisis |  |
| The Round-Up: May 22, 2008 | The Oil Drum: Canada | Weekend Energy Listening: Ethanol's Energy Balance with Tad Patzek | |
User login
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Thanks for posting that. Most people I talk to in the industry have had little input on the subject. I suspect that the complexity of the agreements wording is part of the problem for most people. It certainly was for me, though it seems clear now. It certainly cheapens the credibility of some of the research bodies (ie. parkland institute), who have been publicly decrying the agreement for the (misleaded) reasons i mentioned in my previous post. Other prominent researchers have also apparently misunderstood the agreement (e.g. Richard Heinberg http://www.dogwoodinitiative.org/EB-2008-02-07-prop). As is the case with alot of other work, it makes one aware that you must really question all of the data behind any opinion/analysis.
Did you have a link for where the 56% was specifically mentioned? I could not seem to find it in the site you posted a link for.
There won't be any specific mention of a percentage in the NAFTA agreement as it is determine by a rule.
If Canada were to impose an export restriction on natural gas (or any other defined petroleum product), it could do so only if maintains an export level greater than or equal to "the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36-month period for which data are available prior to the imposition of the measure, or in such other representative period on which the Parties may agree".
The 56% figure given for natural gas would be based on the recent level of exports.
Further, the percentage is based on "total supply", which the agreement defines to be domestic production plus imports. This would be interesting if LNG terminals are established in Canada for gas that is solely destined for export to the US (as has been the case in several proposals).
I believe that the Parkland Institute is quite aware of specifics of the Proportionality article, but the media are not. No doubt Parkland's message has been somewhat distorted by the media's penchant for dramatic sound bites.
Parkland has been trying to raise the awareness of Canadians, especially in Eastern Canada, about Canada's lack of a domestic energy policy and in particular our loss of energy sovereignty. Most Canadians are complacently unaware of our true energy situation and the risks we are running. Their recent paper calling for the establishment of a Canadian SPR got considerable attention in Quebec, the province that is most dependent on foreign imports.
I don't know whether you have the time/resources, but if you could put together a 'keypost' it would be much appreciated... It is disturbingly rare to come across someone who has any worthwhile knowledge of Canada's energy situation.
Anyways, if nothing else, thanks for the input.