Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T21:07:15.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canadian-American Trade in Energy Resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Ted Greenwood
Ted Greenwood
Affiliation:
Assistant professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Research for this article was made possible by support from the University Consortium for World Order Studies.
Get access

Extract

As events since October 1973 have again underscored, security of supply and price of energy resources have enormous strategic and economic implications for any industrialized country. Nevertheless, trade in energy resources between Canada and the United States has not always been closely managed by the central governments that are responsible for national security and economic development. In fact, the energy trade involves a wide variety of actors that continually seek transnational contacts and alliances of opportunity to further their own self-interest almost as if the national border did not exist.

Type
Part III. Issue Areas
Information
International Organization , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , Autumn 1974 , pp. 689 - 710
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “Montana Attracting Oilmen from Alberta,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 16 November 1973, p. B5.

2 Canada, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, An Energy Policy for Canada Phase 1, vol. 2 (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1973), p. 290.

3 Westell, Anthony, “Westcoast Refused Permission to Export Gas at FPC Price,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 23 December 1967.Google Scholar

4 Gillan, Michael, “US-Canada Compromise Clinches Westcoast Deal,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 17 February 1968.Google Scholar

5 See Canada, National Energy Board, Report to the Governor in Council in the Matter of the Applications under the National Energy Board Act of Alberta and Southern Gas Co. Ltd., Alberta Natural Gas Company, Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Co., Consolidated Natural Gas Ltd., Consolidated Pipe Line Co., Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. and Westcoast Transmission Co. Ltd. (Ottawa: National Energy Board, August 1970).

6 Anderson, Ronald and Latter, Nicholas, “Four of Five Gas Permits Sought Receive Export Licence Approval,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 30 September 1970,Google Scholar and “Sale of Natural Gas to United States,”International Canada 1 (September 1970): 184–85.

7 See Canada, National Energy Board, Reasons for Decision in the Matter of the Applications under the National Energy Board Act of Alberta and Southern Gas Co. Ltd., Alberta Natural Gas Co., Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company, Consolidated Natural Gas Ltd., Consolidated Pipe Lines Co. and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. (Ottawa: National Energy Board, November 1971).

8 Canada, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, An Energy Policy for Canada Phase 1: Summary of Analysis (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1973), p. 3.

9 Richardson, Boyce, James Bay: The Plot to Drown the North Woods (Toronto: Clark, Irwin and Co., 1972), pp. 150–153.Google Scholar

10 “Ontario Hydro Asks Boost of One-Third in U.S. Power Sales,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 23 October 1973, p. 1; “Hydro Admits Pollution Potential at Hearing on Export Increases,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 24 October 1973, p. 8; and Wills, Terrance, “Ottawa Facing a Test on Energy Export to U.S.,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 22 November 1973, p. 5.Google Scholar

11 Kilbourn, William, Pipeline (Toronto: Clark, Irwin and Co., 1970), pp. ixxiii and 42–44.Google Scholar

12 Ibid., chapters 5, 6, 7, 8.

13 Ibid., pp. 93–97.

14 Kennedy, Thomas, “Alberta Sets Up Petroleum Marketing Body,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 7 December 1973, p. B1.Google Scholar

15 “New Saskatchewan Tax Plan Proposed Oil Profit Controls,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 11 December 1973, p. B5.

16 Kennedy, Thomas, “Millions Paid for Gas Not Yet Found,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 1 September 1973, p. B2.Google Scholar

17 O'Brien, John, “Premier Indicates Firm Refinery Commitments,” Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 7 February 1973;Google Scholarand Watkins, Lyndon, “Newfoundland, N.S. Put Up $143.5 Million in Loans for Oil Refineries,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 2 August 1973, p. B5.Google Scholar

18 Watkins, Lyndon, “N.S. Premier Confirms Refinery Talks with Middle East,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 27 April 1973, p. B1;Google Scholar and “Dock, Refinery Urged at N.B. Thermal Plant,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 12 October 1973, p. B4.

19 “Forsees Fight,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 30 November 1973, p. B2.

20 Watkins, Lyndon, “Newfoundland, N.S. Put Up $143.5 Million in Loans for Oil Refineries,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 2 August 1973, p. B5.Google Scholar

21 Walsh, Bren, “Fishermen Have Doubts About Route of Tankers,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 12 May 1973, p. 8.Google Scholar

22 “Projects Compatible,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 15 September 1973, p. 2.

23 For a critical evaluation of the James Bay project, see Richardson.

24 Kilbourn, pp. 17–19.

25 Ibid., p. 21.

26 Ibid., chapter 6.

27 For a discussion of these negotiations, see Waterfield, Donald, Continental Waterboy: The Columbia River Controversy (Toronto: Clark, Irwin and Co., 1970).Google Scholar

28 Kilbourn, pp. 38–42 and passim.

29 On the history of the St. Lawrence Seaway, see Willoughby, William R., The St. Lawrence Seaway: A Study in Polities and Diplomacy (Madison, Wis.: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1961).Google Scholar

30 “May Have Right to Cut Oil Flow to Montreal, Maine Leader Says,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 18 December 1973, p. 3; “Maritimes' Oil Outlook Worsens Following Embargo Information,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 21 December 1973, p. B2;Wills, Terrance, “National Energy Board Eases Controls, Will Permit Oil to Flow to Maine Mills,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 22 December 1973, p. 10;Google Scholar and “Production Cut,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 1 December 1973, p. B1.

31 “N.B., Maine Sign Agreement,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 29 June 1973, p. B2.

32 “Canada Feels Oil Pipeline Would Delay Gas Line,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 7 July 1973, p. B2.

33 Ward, Peter, “Alaska Oil Pipeline Could Cost Canada $850,000 a Day,” Toronto Telegram, 21 January 1971.Google Scholar

34 Kipling, Bogdan, “Why Ottawa is Pushing for the Mackenzie Valley Route,” Financial Times (Montreal), 1 May 1972.Google Scholar

35 “State Department Says Canada Barred Oil Pipeline Talks,” New York Times, 24 July 1973, p. 13;Munro, Ross H., “Reluctance of Ottawa to Discuss Pipeline Reason for Alaska Route, U.S. Official Says,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 24 July 1973, p. 1; andGoogle ScholarHunter, Iain, “Sharp Admits Canada Rebuffed U.S. in Mackenzie Pipeline Talk Offers,” Ottawa Journal, 24 July 1973.Google Scholar

36 Russell, George, “Prospects Felt Good,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 12 May 1972.Google Scholar

37 Munro, Ross H., “Oil Guarantee Plan Against U.S. Interests,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 1 August 1973, p. B2.Google Scholar

38 Munro, Ross H., “U.S. Rejects Deal for Overland Delivery of Oil,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 19 September 1973, p. B2.Google Scholar

39 For a different view of the potential for conflict over energy resources, see Richard Rohmer, Ultimatum (Toronto: Clark, Irwin and Co., 1973).

40 Munro, Ross H., “Washington Shows No Surprise,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 6 September 1973, p. B1;Google ScholarMunro, Ross H., “U.S. Angry with Ottawa for Increase in Oil Price,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 15 September 1973, p. 1;Google ScholarandMunro, Ross H., “U.S. Not Surprised by Higher Tax,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 3 November 1973, p. 3.Google Scholar

41 I am indebted to Larratt T. Higgins for alerting me to the distinction between sales to individual firms and sales to utilities and for emphasizing its importance.

42 “May Have Right to Cut Oil Flow to Montreal, Maine Leader Says,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 18 December 1973, p. 3.

43 Canada, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, An Energy Policy for Canada, Phase 1, vol. 1 (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1973), p. 81.

44 “Alberta Gets Tax Revenue,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 29 November 1973, p. 12; and “Federal Oil Export Tax Share Set for Energy Role,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 14 December 1973, p. B2.

45 See the staff paper prepared by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, Atlantic Region: Economic Circumstances and Opportunities (Ottawa: Department of Regional Economic Expansion, April 1973), pp. 28–32, 48–50, 54–55.

46 Henderson, Ross, “Ottawa Juggles Supplies as U.S. Diverts Fuel Oil,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 20 September 1973, p. 1.Google Scholar

47 Belford, Terrance, “Fuel Policy: Freeze Extended to Spring, Oil Self Sufficiency Pledged,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 7 December 1973, p. 1.Google Scholar

48 “B.C. Plans Near-Doubling of Price of Natural Gas,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 13 October 1972, p. 1.

49 Munro, Ross H., “'Canadian Chauvinism' Seen Improving Chances of U.S. Tanker Plan,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 2 October 1973, p. B1;Google Scholar“Mackenzie Gas Line Hopes Wane as E1 Paso Seeks to Block Plan,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 3 November 1973, p. B2; and Kennedy, Thomas, “Brokers Appear to be Losing Enthusiasm for Mackenzie Line,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 30 November 1973, p. B1.Google Scholar