Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Oil giants taking Canada to court

STEVEN CHASE AND DAVID EBNER

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 2:05 AM EST 27/09/07

Exxon, Murphy filing lawsuits claiming investment conditions for Nfld. offshore projects breach NAFTA ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Neil Fiertel from Edmonton, Canada writes: If the multinational energy companies do not wish to do as the Canadian people demand, they can get the hell out of Canada and let us run our own energy sector..you know, the one that Brian Mulroney threw away after Pierre Trudeau had created PetroCanada and Mulroney sold it off. We can do it all over again and do it right. We have the oil and gas and whoever does not like our social responsibility to serve Canadians first can just drill in their own land and find...dust. For once, Canada has the clout as Canada has the goods. It is about time we stand up and do it.
  2. Patrick Matheson from Canada writes: Ohhh.... Ohhhhh.....

    Two words that bring terror to the land
    Big Oil and NAFTA....

    We are so screwed.

    'Hey Brian.... ya... thanks again for your legacy'
  3. Fog Hat from Canada writes: Boycott Esso
  4. dave s from Canada writes: Abrogate! NAFTA takes away Canadian sovereignty. If an American Company can strike down Canadian legislation because it damages their bottom line, then Canada isn't a free country anymore.
    The idea that oil companies can dictate to us the conditions by which they make their massive profits off of our natural resources is outrageous. Call your MP's. Write letters. Boycott Exxon.
    Enough is enough. If they aren't happy with the billions of dollars in revenue they take from our resources maybe we should keep the money and the resources.
  5. globefan EH from Canada writes: A couple of weeks ago Alberta had a warning from the Chairman of Imperial Oil to leave the royalty structure alone,. The royalty structure that was put in place when oil prices were about 12 dollars a barrel to encourage investment in Alberta. Oil has recently traded as high as $80 per barrel, gravy anyone.

    Now Newfoundland is about to be made aware of the wrath of Exxon. The multinationals seem to get upset when we remind them that they are here because of the generosity and cooperation of the Canadian people and their elected representatives and while the share prices have certainly benefited the Board of Directors as well as those who have invested it is still our oil, Exxon does not yet own Canada.

    Avo Morales , President of Bolivia, on Jon Stewart last night stated that Bolivia earned 300 million a year (the price of a few nice houses in Bill Gates neighborhood) for its oil and gas annually until they nationalised the industry. The Bolivian people now receive two billion dollars a year and as we all know Bolivia is one of the poorest of the Latin American countries. Tsk Tsk.
  6. Rich Hummer Driving Oilman from Calgary, Canada writes: It is not uncommon that a line is suddenly crossed from demanding utilizing local business to an outright taxation. This problem is seen on a smaller scale every week here in Alberta with unrealistic demands from first nations groups, or local stakeholders attempting to TAX the industry to allow them to work and bring prosperity to their region. Many feel that the jobs created and taxes payed aren't enough and feel that they need to get 'their fair snare' of the money. This is just a shot across the bow nothing more...
  7. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: THIS IS what I was saying many months ago, that many provisions of this 'deal' obviously violate NAFTA, but all the angry Newfoundland posters came out and said I was just another central-Canadian-jerk that didn't want NFLD to get it's fair share. Believe me, I have nothing against Newfoundland or it's desire to get it's fair share, I'm just saying the deal is against NAFTA! Period! So somehow, the government needs to make Exxon agree to the conditions which are illegal (Exxon could presumably easily win an injunction against it if they took it to court) or change the deal! And no, we're not going to withdraw from NAFTA over this, that would be the classic example of killing a fly with a cannon. What concerns me is if it becomes the Federal governments responsibility to enforce a court order (it probably will) etc etc., that will be very politically sensitive, and the Federal government will have no choice but to do it, but CLEARLY in NFLD it will be seen as NFLD getting 'screwed again' by the Federal government, and fan the flames of separatism, and the flag will come down again, and all that nonsense. Everyone on the rock will be fuming angry at Canada and Canadians, bring out the pink and white or whatever that thing looks like. This won't end well, thank Danny Williams. Please, fix the deal so we don't need to deal with this in the future.
  8. aloysuis paczjoskteyochuk from Canada writes: Have you noticed it is only one country that always breaks the rules, even if the courts rule in our favour it changes nothing. Too bad we did not have Canadians as equals drawing up the rules of NAFTA, I guess we only had observers when the NAFTA agreements were drawn up and they did not understand the rules but signed on anyway. The devil is always in the small print.
  9. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: dave s: . . . YUP. . . . now watch as very few if any Tories post on this subject. H m m m . . . what a surprise.
  10. john setta from Canada writes: So what does our government do then, nothing. Why are our governments so short in brain power, and so highly evolved in corruption?

    Where's the beef!
  11. sean smith from Canada writes: Proof again that NAFTA sold us out and Exxon is out of control. If Exxon doesn't need like any government oversight they should just go back to their lab in Houston and produce all the oil they want from a beaker.
  12. JEANNE FARINE from Vancouver, Canada writes: Thus proving John Turner right again! Now, the Conservatives DO have a problem...On the record of the past decade, the Supreme Court will more than likely find for the Oil folks because NAFTA is the law...And Mulroney will be insisting that Harper and Co'y honour his deal...So how beneficial has it really been ? Ask those whose jobs are continually outsourced to cheaper labour jurisdictions, or the farmers who have been found in violation of NAFTA because they resisted US giants in agriculture and fertilizers and and modification of genus. Now ask the auto workers. And then watch the attack on the car makers' gouging under loonie parity...using U.S. 'agreements' to evade NAFTA from their side...Do you think that a Canadian court will even allow the legal challenge by Canadians to proceed? Brian the prevaricator keeps on telling the world how brilliantly his gift of 'Free' Trade keeps on giving! Sure it does...if you are a corporate predator, you REALLY like it...If a middle of the road Canadian business, don't count on long term profits...they won't be there. Nor will Canadian Governments (Provincial OR Federal) be able to serve Canadians first on any economic front, if the U.S. interest can file a claim against the move under NAFTA...
    Are you waiting for Mr. Harper to act on this front? Don't hold your breath as they say...
  13. Mr X from Canada writes: 'Mr. Justice from Canada writes: dave s: . . . YUP. . . . now watch as very few if any Tories post on this subject. H m m m . . . what a surprise. '

    Perhaps because there is not enough information to make an informed decision. I'm not sure why Canada would make promises like those mentioned in the article.
  14. John Deriso from Edmonton, Canada writes: And why should the province/nation have any say in how it's resources are exploited? It's not like the people have to live with the consequences of the company's actions or anything......
  15. Mr X from Canada writes: It is possible that spending research money in NFLD is a waste of money for them.
  16. R L from Calgary, Canada writes: Yet more proof of the sovereignty disaster that is NAFTA!! We have barely a sovereign country as a result of this traitorous disgrace!

    Shred NAFTA and burn it!
  17. chris jenkins from Free the West, Canada writes: All you Lefties should actually read the story. This is about Danny Williams trying to extort extra money out of the oil companies, no different from his attempts to extort extra money out of our Federal Government. It's all about the welfare when it comes to Nfld. Oil profits and provincial productivity are not enough for Williams, he wants equalization payments and 'local development' cash as well. This mentality is a sure-fire way of keeping Nfld dependant on other provinces.
  18. Bruce May from Vietnam writes: Looks like Canada's New Government (TM) is America's New Pump (TM) thanks to the foresight of Brian Mulroney, respected carrier of manila envelopes and spit-polisher of Exxon's windshield. I guess the water will go next, as mandated by NAFTA.
    Extorting money from oil companies? Exxon had a profit of 39.5 billion dollars in 2006, the largest profit by an American company in history. Just who is extorting whom?
    So where are all the cons on this? You're right dave s, it's mighty quiet.
  19. A Canadian from Cole Harbour, Canada writes: Hey guys, just a quick trip memory lane.

    When Chretien was elected in 1993, Chrétien pledged to reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement and negotiate a better deal for Canada. He immediately broke the promise.

    Also from Wiki

    Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party was elected to office in the 1984 election. Free trade was not an important issue, but Mulroney and the party both announced their opposition to such a move. In 1985, a Royal Commission on the economy issued a report to the Government of Canada recommending free trade with the United States. This commission was chaired by former Liberal Minister of Finance Donald S. Macdonald, and had been commissioned by the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau. Mulroney nonetheless embraced the report's findings. U.S. President Ronald Reagan welcomed the Canadian initiative and the United States Congress gave the President the authority to sign a free trade agreement with Canada, subject to it being presented for Congressional review by October 5, 1987.

    So get your facts straight before frothing at the mouth about Mulroney. tks
  20. Bruce May from Vietnam writes: 'With Brian Mulroney's first term coming to an end, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement dominates the 1988 federal election. The Liberal-dominated Senate refuses to ratify the final free trade document unless Mulroney receives electoral support. So the prime minister calls Canadians to the polls. In this pivotal moment during the televised leadership debate, Liberal leader John Turner accuses Mulroney of selling out Canada with 'one signature of a pen.' -CBC, 1988
    And John Turner was right.
    The 1988 election was all about free trade, Mulroney for and Turner against.
  21. John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: Exxon and Murphy might be doing Newfoundland a favour since it does not make sense to develop a false economy - or one built on lies. For example - the population of Atlantic Canada is about 3 million; a country like Finland is about 5 million - compare Finland's economy with Atlantic Canada - or another example, Iceland where there are only 330,000 people; however, Iceland is prosperous and even provides fishing technology to Atlantic Canada. It does not pay to build an economy that takes money for nothing - in my mind, that is more like stealing or at least close to fraud.
  22. dave sharpe from Canada writes: yes jimmy k , give them their money so they won't be breaking up canada, where do you get your information dude, to me it seems like Exxon has come back for another black eye, and suing over 50 miilion, on a 6 billion deal, big whoopy
  23. Peter J. from Toronto, Canada writes: One thing I still don't understand after reading the article is whether the federal government actually has the power to form a treaty with a foreign government(s) regarding an issue (natural resources) that is constitutionally a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Could the reporters please get some legal opinions for us?
  24. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Exxon Mobil bullying to again get their own way? Yawn! Turn page!
  25. Philip Van Bergen from Hashima, Japan writes: Talk about rampant arrogance on Exxon and Murphy's part!! I hope
    the Chinese buy the entire stock of Exxon and sack the entire
    management! Canada shouldn't back down to Exxon bullying- by any
    PC/Lib/Cons/NDP/PQ or any other government!!
  26. Edward Carson from Canada writes: I always thought Exxon was just the America name for the Dutch company Esso? They have a similar logo, same colours and same stupid tiger. So can someone tell me how a Dutch owned company qualifies for NAFTA?
  27. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Wow, it is amazing that everyone around the world knows what most Canadians don't seem to. Brian Mulroney did sell out Canada through signing NAFTA, and his pupil, Mr. Harper, continues the sell off.

    Time to consider abrogation -- Canada needs to diversify in its trade partners.
  28. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Unfortunately, all these 'non-partisan' think tanks that have cropped up all over Canada like the Fraser Institute, the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies, the Frontier Institute, etc., etc. are all funded by Exxon Mobil.

    These groups have links to their local media, and somehow manage to get their issues in the papers in Canada (sometimes word for word.)

    Keep an eye out on how all the sheep of these particular groups start bleating now about how unfairly Mobil Exxon is being treated in Canada.
  29. John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: Edward Carson; are you confusing Shell with Esso?
  30. John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: Edward Carson; are you confusing Shell with Esso?
  31. Time Out from Canada writes: So when it comes to softwood lumber, the loonie left US haters cry foul, 'the Americans don't respect NAFTA', 'the Americans don't respect international agreements', but when Danny boy and and the Liberals contrive to scam more money out of investors, in apparently violation of the same agreement, we get 'Shred NAFTA and burn it! 'and 'F..k NAFTA '. Just delightful these hypocrites. Listen up loonies, it's nobodys oil until it comes out of the ground.
  32. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: So, to all the ultra right wing neocon nuts: You still think NAFTA was the best thing since sliced bread? You still think that people who question how Canada can maintain full sovereignty under NAFTA are just left wing nuts? This is happening more than you know.
  33. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Time out:

    Can you get a few more of your con friends on line? Because as has been pointed out, you guys are very quiet all of a sudden on this issue.

    I also smell an election in the air, and I want Mr. Harper to explain to Atlantic Canadians and the rest of Canada as to which side he stands on on this particular issue -- as well, as the development of fallow field legislation in Atlantic Canada
  34. Time Out from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Wow, it is amazing that everyone around the world knows what most Canadians don't seem to. Brian Mulroney did sell out Canada through signing NAFTA, and his pupil, Mr. Harper, continues the sell off.
    Everyone around the world? If you knew anything, you would know that most countries around the world would are envious of the free trade agreement we have with Canada.
  35. Another Opinion from Canada writes: Newfoundland played hardball on what they wanted in exchange for the development rights for the oil in their jurisdiction. I don't see the problem. Is there something in NAFTA that says 'thou shalt give up thy resources to foreign exploitation in a polite and subservient manner'?

    The oil, ultimately, belongs to the people of Newfoundland until they sign a contract to allow a company to develop it. If they say that it can't be developed unless a company follows their rules, I don't see how that's illegal. Besides, nobody is MAKING these oil companies sign on to these terms.

    They signed the contract of their own volition. End of story.
  36. t scot from Canada writes: Time Out...your not to bright pal if you think oil in the ground belongs to nobody.
  37. Canadian Abroad from London, United Kingdom writes: I agree Another Opinion. Big oil companies do not have to sign these legally binding contracts.

    The other side of the coin is this is $50m out of a $6b project. Its not about the money, it is about setting a precedent. Exxon might be testing the waters here to see how far it can push, and whether the Canadian government will follow a judgement in its favour.

    It is a bit risky if you ask me. They have favourable conditions in Canada (despite what people think of Premier Williams' tactics) compared to countries who are nationalising their oil and gas.

    I predict this gets blown way out of proportion and becomes an issue the Libs and Cons argue about. When in fact Canada should make big oil invest in further Canadian projects, regardless of where it is. It is all about a change in negotiating leverage in the favour of NL and Canada.
  38. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Time Out:

    Did you just tip your hat in referring to the 'agreement we have with Canada?'

    Are you writing from south of the border or is that an error? If it is the former, of course, the world would be envious, it is difficult to get another country to sign onto an agreement that only gets enforced in one party's favour and allows the bigger partner to simply demand all the resources from the smaller. Who wouldn't envy that arrangement?
  39. Tim Bee from Canada writes: NAFTA can be ignored when it doesn't serve the country's best interest. This precident has been set by the US.
  40. Tim Bee from Canada writes: t scot from Canada writes: Time Out...your not to bright pal if you think oil in the ground belongs to nobody...

    I think you're not too bright.
  41. gary white from halifax, Canada writes: If Canadians invested in their own commodities, instead of selling the raw resources to others. we would be a very wealthy country. First we were a British protectorate, now an American protectorate, too lazy and cheap to do for ourselves.
  42. Bill M from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Wow, it is amazing that everyone around the world knows what most Canadians don't seem to. Brian Mulroney did sell out Canada through signing NAFTA, and his pupil, Mr. Harper, continues the sell off.

    And everyone in canada knows that NAFTA exists today because Chretien and Martin got elected on a promise to scrap it, along with the GST. So maybe you should be blaming them.

    And for those of you who wondering where all the Cons were last night and not posting, it's because they were sleeping. They have jobs.
  43. Percy Way from Canada writes: NAFTA has become an agreement of convenience, with the powerful using or ignoring it when it serves them best interest. Since the agreement was signed Quebec has refused to allow new hydroelectric power to be transported across that province from Labrador to the central Canadian and US market. A clear violation of NAFTA. NL has not had the resources to challenge this and the federal government (regardless of political stripe) has done nothing. The US totally ignored and violated NAFTA on softwood lumber and gain financially from it. So, if people actually think that NL is going to be intimidated by this kind of hypocrisy, think again. This is an interesting new strategy of intimidation being invoke by big oil both in western and eastern Canada. I guess the new rules are about to be set.
  44. J. Collins from United Kingdom writes: Natural Resourses belong to the Provinces. Exxon and Murphy can play by provincial rules or go home.
  45. Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: Edward Carson from Canada writes: 'I always thought Exxon was just the America name for the Dutch company Esso?'

    Say what? Esso is an international trade name for Exxon Mobil Corporation and its related companies. Pronounced S-O, it is derived from the name Standard Oil Company. In 1972, Standard Oil of New Jersey renamed itself the Exxon Corporation.
  46. t scot from Canada writes: Robert Miller....good eye....It would appear that Time Out is a poseur. How pathetic is that.
  47. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: NAFTA was written by the oil companies and the lawyers. is anyone surprised that we're getting screwed over by greedy SOBs like this because of a foolish document that should never have been signed? but hey, who cares if we're in breach. lets claim we're not, and let this drag out for years only to go to court, which we will ignore if we so choose. after all, wouldnt be the first time something like that happened under NAFTA.
  48. Gerry Pankhurst from Westport, Canada writes: When the smoke clears and the rhetoric dies this scandalous affair will be seen as part of the Bush/Harper evil alliance. Wait for it.
  49. Noise Machine from Toronto, Canada writes: Dan the man Williams is very shred and good for him. He has the Feds by the short and curlies due to Paul Martin's vote buying scheme known as the Atlantic Accord. He also wants 100% of the equalization payments, which means that when these two initiatives are put together, Newfoundland will have more money per capita than Ontario, who is supplementing the equalization trough-Ontarians don't mind because their a collection of socialists who simply want their fair share of entitlements and sufficient disposable income. And now we learn this:Ottawa is breaking the treaty by forcing them to spend a bigger percentage of research cash in Newfoundland. As an Ontarian, I'd trade all of our provincial leaders for Williams-he's doing far more for Newfoundland than a thousand McGuinties could ever do for Ontario.
  50. t scot from Canada writes: T Bee ...I make a perfectly obvious statement about this clown called Time Out and you comment that 'I'm' not to bright. Is he your bff or what.
  51. Vince Porter from Canada writes: A $50M suit in a multibillion dollar deal? The lawyers will make more than $50M from this one. The intent is obviously to establish precedent. Much easier to get in NL's face than Alberta's. The thin edge of the wedge is aimed at NL. The thick end is intended for Alberta.
  52. Pete Kauchak from Canada writes: There is nothing in NAFTA that compels any government to hand over their resources to multinational companies. If they don't like the Newfoundland government's terms, then don't develop the resource - period.
  53. Al MacDonald from Think GR$$N, Canada writes: NAFTA: What is American belongs to the U.S. What is Canadian is negotiable.

    I will be boycotting ESSO.

    Thanks again Mulroney! Way to go Harper!
  54. jeff peters from Canada writes: Tell them to take it out of the Amercian slush fund from our illegally collected lumber duties.....
  55. Crusty Curmudgeon from Canada writes:
    The thought of oil companies using the 'law' to bolster CEO bonus packages is something I find extremely distasteful.
  56. Percy Way from Canada writes: Great corporate citizens are these oil companies. Here they are developing new technologies for drilling in 'iceberg alley', a unique environment even when compared to the North Sea. And they want to do research where - in the Gulf of Mexico maybe??? Hey Exxon get your act together, and start spending more of your money outside the USA.
  57. The Bubble from Toronto, Canada writes: The big picture you are all missing is if the Americans don't get what they want they will take it. Canada is no more important to the US than Afghanistan is. Time out, you are an American, it's in the way you write. Americans are thieves, liars and free trade has always been simply a place Americans can beat on us with lawyers and too much money. It was never supposed to be a mechanism for dispute (softwood).
    However, if the Americans don't get what they want in courts, they will send in the army and take it here, Iraq, anywhere, there is no jurisdiction that is safe anymore and Canada is a sitting duck. Harper is a tiny bit player. He could be bigger if he had a spine but alas he doesn't understand, he thinks pulling his pants down for the Americans is good for this country and being from the west, there is a particularly anti-eastern Canada in his tone so he will protect the west and what the west is, simply oil.
    Where are the good politicians from Ontario? Now that is a mystery!
  58. Edward Carson from Canada writes: John McCaffery - you are correct. I did confuse the two.
  59. David Simon from Canada writes: For all those people against NAFTA-Canada can exit NAFTA just by giving a year's notice. Will William's pal Dion say that he'll do this? If not either NF leaves Canada or lives with the consequences.
  60. shaun narine from Fredericton, Canada writes: This may well be a violation of NAFTA, but that is simply a demonstration that NAFTA either needs to be changed or, in this instance, ignored. The idea that a province cannot benefit from its own resources, to the point that it sees fit, is preposterous. The other thing here is that the provinces actually have the oil companies over a barrel (pardon the pun). What are the big companies going to do if Alberta changes the royalties structure? Get up and leave? I don't think so, not with oil at $80/barrel. Of course, in Alberta, the government eats whatever the oil companies tell it to, so I suspect that it will back down in the end and continue letting big oil rape the province. In NFLD, that's less likely. Still, it's an interesting comment on the nature of NAFTA and how law and trade agreements are made to serve the interests of the powerful at the expense of everyone else. But that is why they are often bad ideas. Binding agreements may, in theory, bring predictability, but they also prevent the necessary political and social flexibility that good government requires. Finally, I note that the US has learned to ignore NAFTA when it comes to softwood lumber - maybe Canada should do the same in this issue.
  61. dallas mcquarrie from Regina, Canada writes: Just another example of how the Conservatives sold Canada down the river with NAFTA. Makes you wonder how many envelops stuffed with cash there really were for the former PM. And now, with another Tory PM who worships at the altar of oil, transnational corporations once again have the 'inside track' with the federal government. What a pity our current PM is simply a tool of the oil patch who aspires to be more like George Bush. Yah, NAFTA is a really sweet deal, alright ... sweet for oil companies, sweet for corporate profits, but a killer for Canada.
  62. Percy Way from Canada writes: David Simon from Canada, yet another threat and political rant. Did you suggest the same option for the US states benefiting from their legally-confirmed violation of NAFTA in regards to softwood lumber, or do you just have a bad attitude towards NL?
  63. edward martin from St. John's, Canada writes: What a great election issue! The Liberals and NDP must be licking their chops on this one (and No I am not a C(or c)onservative).

    PS 'The Bubble', what you say is racist. Do you say the same thing about Jews, Blacks, or Newfoundlanders? Yes some Americans are that way, but obviously so are many Canadians (of should I say Torontonians). I have met many Americans who are terrific people.
  64. Lousy Investor from Canada writes: NAFTA was signed by the liberals in December 1993 and came into effect in January 1994.

    Mulroney brought in the FTA. This is not an FTA issue. It is a NAFTA Issue. Stop blaming Mulroney.
  65. garlick toast from mill village, Canada writes: this'll keep danny busy while harper steals an election.abc
  66. Gnarly kanuck from Canada writes: Funny how most people on the board here get what is going on... yet our esteemed politicians in Ottawa do nothing to protect Canadian Sovereignty and build a strong resource based economy where Canadians benefit from our own resources.

    Exxon and Murphy did not have to set up in NFLD. they can walk from their agreement and keep looking for oil elsewhere.
  67. Dan Van Gageldonk from Canada writes: This issue is more complex than what most of you on this board are willing to admit. Charge on with your NDP or Liberal hats with anything that you believe can be used to discredit Conservatives. Pathetic but expected. My initial reaction to this story was who the hell do you think you are Exxon. If you don't like it then p**s off. However after thinking about it longer what kind of communist/socialist program is this. You have to do $50 million in research in the area, even if the resources aren't here with regards to manpower, infrastructure or anything along those lines. In a free market economy this seems ludicrous to me but the facts aren't here in order for us to make any kind of determination as to the validity of this lawsuit. If the system isn't there to support this $50 million or if the system that is there is already maxed out then this is a ludicrous demand. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Time out: Can you get a few more of your con friends on line? Because as has been pointed out, you guys are very quiet all of a sudden on this issue. Your posting at 5:00 in the morning and wondering where the conservative supporters are? With insight like that my friend I definitely know how to take any of your well thought out comments.
  68. Tony Mareschealle from Mississauga, Canada writes: This is another case of 'Big Oil' trying to dictate to a 'Country / Province'. In this case they think they have the advantage hiding behind the perceived 'NaAFTA' agreement - especially as theses are US companies. More important however is the precendent they are trying to set / prevent (depends on which side of the fence you are on) as the next big frontier for Oil is really the NWT and the Artic. The Oil companies may not find it so easy to deal with the aboriginal governements as they will probably want even more in the way of a piece of the revenues.

    The oil companies can either anti up or P.... off, there are others who will want the oil.
  69. The Bubble from Toronto, Canada writes: Edward, being Anti American implies more that I don't like their foreign policies on dominance. The American people are as irrelevant as Canadians they are more slaves to their regime than we are, we are lucky to have incompetent politicians that haven't evolved to the level of socipathy of the American politician
    Racism is a hate based on a certain types of people and I have many friends who are in the groups you describe. Anti-Americanism is a political term coined by Americans to make it seem like racism aka antisemitism. I do so hate the American need to control everything, it's getting deadlier all the time. They are collectively like an aging star who will do anything to remain in the top spot, anything.
  70. The Bubble from Toronto, Canada writes: Lousy investor, thats a good name for you. Nafta and fta are one and the same.
    You should read a little more.
    I read the documents when they came out and just to remind you all, in times of crisis, the Americans get our energy before simple, ordinary, unwitting, Canadian sheep do to heat their homes. Our governments knew that energy was going to be a blood sport 20 years ago, we are all in a lot of trouble now.
  71. M M from Toronto, Canada writes: Anything that reins in Danny Williams is a good thing. This is not an example of oil companies run amok, but of extortion by Danny Williams. He's done it before and he'll do it again. It's good to see someone stand up to that guy.
  72. Charles Mitz from Canada writes: We should have retaliated for the US breach of NAFTA on softwood by withdrawing energy from the agreement (as is allowed under the NAFTA). That would have been the smart thing to do but absent that we should just borrow from the American's playbook and refuse to pay even if the courts rule against us...at least until the Americans return the billion dollars they stole from our softwood lumber industry
  73. The Bubble from Toronto, Canada writes: Americans know that power isn't something you ask for, it's a lesson Canadians have yet to understand.
  74. Jack Ryan from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm a supporter of NAFTA, however, these oil companies are going to have a tough time finding a sympathetic ear. I mean who really cares if Exxon loses or gains $55 million? With oil prices and profits at all time highs they have a lot of nerve suing a country for such a small amount of money over something too obscure for 95% of the public to even care about. Even if they win this suit it will take much more than $55 million in advertising costs to offset the negative publicity proceeding with this law suit will bring them. Seriously, this amounts to ruining a friendship because your friend stiffed you $2 on the lunch bill you were supposed to split evenly. Not very smart at all. Ridiculous. This is just one more straw on the camels back when it comes to citizens tolerating the greed and environmental destruction caused by oil companies. Did I mention how stupid this law suit is?
  75. G P from St. John's, Canada writes: Yet more evidence of the left wing policies of the Newfoundland and Labrador Conservative Party. Danny Williams is a socialist at heart.
  76. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: There you have it. NAFTA at work. NAFTA isn't free trade. NAFTA is all about sucking Canada and Mexico dry while the US profits. Meanwhile, the US ignores whatever rules it wants, because it has more money for lawyers than we do, and a population that is completely clueless of what their government is doing to other countries. It's a one-sided deal, and we're stuck with it thanks to spineless politicians.
  77. P Martin from St. John's, NL, Canada writes: NL puts much more money back into Canada than it ever receives in equalization. This false belief of NL as a welfare state is exactly that - false. But nice of those with little knowledge and intelligence to continue to rant about it. As for the NAFTA challenge, I have some reservations about the way this is worded. I am curious if the US will use this as an excuse sometime in the future to invade Canada for our Oil and Water.
  78. The Bubble from Toronto, Canada writes: Hey GP, I'm a socialist at heart too and you are a lonely bored old man.
    'Love your brother as yourself'
    I am my brothers keeper.
  79. Percy Way from Canada writes: M M from Toronto, please learn from the history of the NL off-shore. Remember the Ocean Ranger. It was very much a case of big oil trying to apply Gulf of Mexico technology to 'iceberg alley & the North Atlantic'. The outcome was disasterous. And now NL is insisting on research being done in iceberg alley by the very companies who wish to take oil from there. So what is wrong with that logic? Maybe you would place some of your family members on those future rigs, designed based on research done elsewhere. This is big oil out of control. If they think they're going to do research in the US and risk our lives and our environment then Premier Williams will not doubt correct that thought. If you wish not to support protecting Canadian lives and the Canadian environment then step up to the plate and say so clearly.
  80. The Bubble from Toronto, Canada writes: Americans can take possession of anything in Canada it likes in times of crisis under free trade. This is like when George W. declares war, his power to usurp the congress increases. That's why they do these things, to circumvent the government and as a minor inconvenience, the people. Democracy is secondary to capitalism.
  81. Dale Fedler from north battleford, Canada writes: It has been said that the sign of third world country is one that allows it's natural resources to be removed in there raw form. We should just keep allowing this to happen by the states and no our place, or tell them to get the h out and shut down all of the resource raping that is going on in Canada from oil to water, and control our own destiny. What a concept.
  82. Gnarly kanuck from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from Canada writes: This issue is more complex than what most of you on this board are willing to admit. Charge on with your NDP or Liberal hats with anything that you believe can be used to discredit Conservatives. Pathetic but expected. My initial reaction to this story was who the hell do you think you are Exxon. If you don't like it then p**s off. However after thinking about it longer what kind of communist/socialist program is this. You have to do $50 million in research in the area, even if the resources aren't here with regards to manpower, infrastructure or anything along those lines. In a free market economy this seems ludicrous to me but the facts aren't here in order for us to make any kind of determination as to the validity of this lawsuit.
    =====

    Tell me what is 'communist/socialist' about Williams negotiating a deal that sets aside $50Million for R&D investment?

    Exxon accepted those terms when they signed the deal... that is a free market.

    Had Danny Boy negotiated the extra $50 million to go to account 094875209857 at Union Bacaire Privee in Geneva would that be Capitalism?

    If I recall....Mulroney took his kickbacks in cash for Airbus... I wonder what his payoff was for setting up the Sale of our Country through NAFTA?
  83. Roland Neissinger from Latteville, Canada writes: There the lawyer games start, who needs olympics....
    Scrap NAFTA, it's a legal mirage anyway.....
    Not much different than free trade: Who has power to intimidate, trades free, the rest sucumbs......
  84. Old Codger from Ottawa, Canada writes: John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: Exxon and Murphy might be doing Newfoundland a favour since it does not make sense to develop a false economy - or one built on lies. For example - the population of Atlantic Canada is about 3 million; a country like Finland is about 5 million - compare Finland's economy with Atlantic Canada - or another example, Iceland where there are only 330,000 people; however, Iceland is prosperous and even provides fishing technology to Atlantic Canada....

    Perhaps if NL were an independent country like Finland and Iceland, with full access to all its resources, you would be comparing apples to apples.
  85. A PM from Canada writes: A deal with the americans is a deal that will be broke by the americans
  86. Dan Van Gageldonk from Canada writes: P Martin and The Bubble your talk of American taking what they want from us, invading us for our oil reaks of paranoia and irrational thinking. The Bubble all your wonderful talk of how you have American friends so therefore your not Anti-american is cute but irrelevant. You are as anti-american as they come but hide behind the fact by talking about your wonderfully inclusive circle of friends. Your anti-american because you spout horrible things about America that is total garbage meant to inflame a similar feeling in others. Remember to put on your tinfoil hat before you leave the house today or the Americans will be able to lock a missile onto your location and take out another enemy combatant.
  87. Duke Kelloway from Norton's Cove, writes: It's time that the record got set straight with regards to Newfoundland's place in Canada. All of the Central Canadians with their disparaging remarks need to know that the majority of Newfoundlanders at the time of confederation did not look kindly upon options from which they were asked to make a choice. It was, after all, only after a third, and in essence an illegal ballot given that the third option was to be dropped prior to a second vote, that we were dragged into confederation. Dragged by who? Or, pushed by the Brits? Why all the effort in getting Newfoundland into the country. Maybe it was because Ontario's history in the exploitation of power reflects that of the U.S. and they needed a new dance partner with toes they could step upon. When we are asked by posters to consider advice from Central Canada in forming an opinion about Newfoundlands desire to gain from the exploitation of it's resources it would serve us all well to consider the source of this advice and Ontario serves as a less than exemplary model in it's treatment of the lesser vote. Consider how this province has treated the natives within it's borders. When Dalton makes ill-informed comments about how his great nation within a nation is the engine that drives Canada(read: Ontario) he should consider looking up to see from which gas station he is buying the fuel. Voisey Bay, IOC, Hibernia, White Rose, Terra Nova...
  88. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: since our 'partners' wont abide by NAFTA when it works in our favour, i see no reason to honor the parts of NAFTA that give business' power over our govts. the lawyers won out on the NAFTA negotiations. time to scrap this junk. Canada has FAR more leverage in trade with the US than they do with us, despite the constant fear-mongering of US subservients.
  89. Klaus Kugler from Germany writes: Exxon is one of the richest companies in the world. Newfoundland is one of the poorest provinces in Canada. Pay up!
  90. Oil Patch Guy from Calgary, Canada writes: Does anyone know where Murphy and Imperial spend the majority of their research dollars??? It is at their Canadian Head offices in Calgary, not the United States. All these companies are trying to do is not allow Newfoundland to force these companies to re-locate these people to Newfoundland. Once the Exploration and Development design phases are complete these people will move onto other projects at their same offices in Calgary. The benefits will come to Newfoundland once the project starts the construction phase.
  91. Brian Sexsmith from Canada writes: Bend over Canada - it's time to get screwed by NAFTA again. Brian Mulroney's great legacy for Canadians - the 'take-it-for-free' trade agreement - is a sell-out of Canadian sovereignty and resources. Naturally our porky Washington puppet PM Harper, will side with the U.S. in this.
  92. Dan Van Gageldonk from Canada writes: Gnarly kanuck from Canada writes: Tell me what is 'communist/socialist' about Williams negotiating a deal that sets aside $50Million for R&D investment?

    Well Gnarly I stated in my post why it could be seen as such. Are there enough scientists or engineers in the province to do this research? Will this $50 million be used wisely or will it be used to build infrastructure that won't be used because the manpower won't be around to staff it adequately? I don't know the answers but it isn't as black and white as most shallow posters on here make it out to be. I could easily equate these payments to the payments made to the Atlantic provinces for the last thirty years on make work projects meant to keep the local construction industry busy but the projects themselves were useless.
  93. The Bubble from Toronto, Canada writes: Dan the gagledork, sorry you misread me, I actually have no American friends, I've met a few and they seem socially retarded, but thats my personal opinion, Frank Zappa was a good American.
    There are two things an American or a Conservative spin will ultimately do to further their argument on these posts: the will say to you that things are more complicated than we are understanding them to be or they will begin to call you a terrorist. Folks, I've read some history, and McCarthyism and witch hunts still do exist and are kept alive in people like Mr. gageldork, I hope to die one day speaking freely.
  94. b mac from Canada writes: Well these two projects will now be slowed down or even stalled until the case is heard.
  95. Dan Van Gageldonk from Canada writes: Brian Sexsmith from Canada writes: Bend over Canada - it's time to get screwed by NAFTA again. Brian Mulroney's great legacy for Canadians - the 'take-it-for-free' trade agreement - is a sell-out of Canadian sovereignty and resources. Naturally our porky Washington puppet PM Harper, will side with the U.S. in this.

    Wow you really are one troubled individual. We don't need to bend over Brian because we have been bent over for more than a decade grabbing our heels while Chretien and Martin kept all of these policies you despise in place while they were whipping you into a frenzy telling you how horrible these policies are. You stupid Liberal lapdog repeating Liberal talking points all the while ignoring the fact that the Liberals despite what they