Zerohedge reports that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated to the United States, “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports.”
History books study catastrophic events such as wars or the collapse of empires and try to determine what were the causes and factors that led up to the disaster. What will the future history books say about the collapse of the American hegemony in the global economy? Here are four possible factors:
(1) The leadership did not secure cheap and safe energy from Canada, starving the nation of the resources that they needed to secure the economy.
(2) The leadership refused to reign in spending at all levels of government, leading to a debt-death spiral and to default of the nation’s finances and the collapse of the dollar.
(3) The leadership overextended itself militarily around the globe, which had at best a dubious, if not a negative, return on investment.
Future history books may indeed see Stephen Harper’s statement to the United States as a pivotal moment. Harper is saying, Fine! If you don’t want our energy, we can find other buyers.
It is unfortunate that the United States is incapable of seeing itself the way others see it.
While the U.S. is playing its partisan games the rest of the world is simply moving on.
Thanks for this story. Coming from Europe, I had never heard of this pipeline or any of the history leading up to this. I personally think that it is great that Canada is diversifying its trading partners. China will be a safe bet for years to come in terms of requiring a huge amount of crude, so it seems like a sensible direction to shift towards.
@Don There is a considerable spread in crude prices between WTI (currently ca. $100 per barrel) and Brent ($111). Most of Canada’s oil is currently land-locked and thus sells at West Texas Intermediate prices. A pipeline to one of our coasts would thus increase the price of our oil $11 per barrel at today’s prices. But the pipeline to West coast must cross the Rockies and pass through First Nation territory; the pipeline to the East would be have to span a much greater distance. Both are daunting challenges. But it would be great if a pipeline could reach it here just to Ontario where I live; because we pay Brent prices here, to my knowledge.
That’s probably why the PTB in the US said no to the Canadian oil. I don’t know the stats, but I bet they want to keep production low to keep the price where it is, or higher. Such easy access to Canadian oil probably scared a few suppliers.
This kind of thing is *highly* political. There could have been pressure from the Saudis or anywhere else. We’ll never know the answer.
No offense intented, but I don’t Isaac Brock would care about a pipeline to help the US. I think he would want to see the pipeline to the coast of Canada to help Canada.
We indeed have a dearth of leadership in these United States,
i was shocked when ex-candidate Republican presidential primaries candidate Michelle Bachman criticized President Obama’s decision the first time he turned down approval of the Keystone Pipeline project. I don’t remember her exact words in order to quote her correctly but it was to the effect that this disapproval would increase US dependence on “foreign” petroleum. What a curious reason and I could not help but wonder if she was not aware that Canada is a foreign nation that is not part of the United States. As far as I heard, nobody on TV called her on this lack of knowledge that Canada is indeed a different country totally independe of the US. Approval would have indeed reduced our dependence of petroleum from foreign sources not friendly to the US. But it is much better to deal with friendly foreign sources for petroleum than with unfriendly sources.
Canada obviously has to make decisions in its own best interest, just like every other nation on the face of the earth.
Hopefully things will change here in the US when the elections roll around in December, but Canada can’t wait for ever hoping for the best.