There is an info-war brewing around Michael Moore and CNN is the “theatre” for this conflict. Moore will only go on MSM television live so he does not get edited and reframed. He recently “Blitzed” CNN’s Situation Room host Wolf on July 9th over claims of misrepresentation and distortion around his “Sicko” documentary. And now Moore is demanding an apology from CNN.
This is no media stunt to my mind…it is serious stuff. This is not just a skirmish – it is a battle for who has the authoritative and trustworthy voice in media today. CNN likes t promote itself as the most trusted name in news and compared to FOX – who could argue…well Michael Moore for one.
This media event has serious implications and finally the debate is engaged. I suggest every citizen you loves freedom and democracy best pay attention.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Some Perspectives on Foreign Investment in Alberta's Oil Sands
Interesting column in The Times of India today on the wisdom of investing in oil and energy supplies in other countries and it puts some perspective on the recent China pullout of the Gateway Pipeline project.
The Chinese cited lack of Harper’s political will to pursue facilitating the pipeline project. The Chinese interest was through a state-owned company and that gives the government some pause. The other underling issue is the impact of granting access to our energy supply to other markets on Canada-US relations.
CNN reports that the Iraqi war is costing the American people $10B a month and they now have a $9Trillion dollar debt…much of it owed to the Chinese. U.S. sensitivities are inevitable and rather obvious.
That said the India Times piece adds more context and perspective on the wisdom of a nation buying foreign mineral rights instead of just paying market prices for needed commodities, even at high prices instead of investing in foreign countries to ensure supply.
It cites the historical facts that if a nation makes investment in energy supply sources abroad that do not prove large enough, they have achieved no strategic purpose. If, on the other hand, the sources are significant, then the typical approach has been for the local government to nationalize the resources.
The obvious examples quoted are, “…Russia has on bogus environmental grounds cancelled Shell's licence in the giant Sakhalin-2 oilfield, and now seeks to force British Petroleum out of the giant Kovykta gasfield. Venezuela has abrogated contracts with foreign oil companies and acquired majority rights in most oilfields. Bolivia has done the same.” This is not a new phenomenon given a 30 year old Indian example quoted, “The Rostam and Raksh oilfields that India once owned in Iran were nationalised for a pittance in 1978.”
In terms of Canada-US relations and the economic-political philosophy of Alberta being the reliable secure source of continental supply the article makes another interesting observation. “The notion of national security of supply is a largely a diplomatic fiction. Many miracle economies have proved that raw materials are always available at a price. Hence, owning foreign mines and oilfields is not more logical or profitable than buying commodities at the going price.”
It will be interesting to watch the international aspects but the national elements of Canadian and Alberta relations evolve as oil sands development, investment and market issues unfold. It has to be considered in the broader context of competing interests in North America and American security interests for energy supply and homeland security. The broad context of China and India growth and leverage will be a particularly interesting element as well. And we have not even touched on the ecological and social implications – which are just as important considerations on oil sands development these days.
The Chinese cited lack of Harper’s political will to pursue facilitating the pipeline project. The Chinese interest was through a state-owned company and that gives the government some pause. The other underling issue is the impact of granting access to our energy supply to other markets on Canada-US relations.
CNN reports that the Iraqi war is costing the American people $10B a month and they now have a $9Trillion dollar debt…much of it owed to the Chinese. U.S. sensitivities are inevitable and rather obvious.
That said the India Times piece adds more context and perspective on the wisdom of a nation buying foreign mineral rights instead of just paying market prices for needed commodities, even at high prices instead of investing in foreign countries to ensure supply.
It cites the historical facts that if a nation makes investment in energy supply sources abroad that do not prove large enough, they have achieved no strategic purpose. If, on the other hand, the sources are significant, then the typical approach has been for the local government to nationalize the resources.
The obvious examples quoted are, “…Russia has on bogus environmental grounds cancelled Shell's licence in the giant Sakhalin-2 oilfield, and now seeks to force British Petroleum out of the giant Kovykta gasfield. Venezuela has abrogated contracts with foreign oil companies and acquired majority rights in most oilfields. Bolivia has done the same.” This is not a new phenomenon given a 30 year old Indian example quoted, “The Rostam and Raksh oilfields that India once owned in Iran were nationalised for a pittance in 1978.”
In terms of Canada-US relations and the economic-political philosophy of Alberta being the reliable secure source of continental supply the article makes another interesting observation. “The notion of national security of supply is a largely a diplomatic fiction. Many miracle economies have proved that raw materials are always available at a price. Hence, owning foreign mines and oilfields is not more logical or profitable than buying commodities at the going price.”
It will be interesting to watch the international aspects but the national elements of Canadian and Alberta relations evolve as oil sands development, investment and market issues unfold. It has to be considered in the broader context of competing interests in North America and American security interests for energy supply and homeland security. The broad context of China and India growth and leverage will be a particularly interesting element as well. And we have not even touched on the ecological and social implications – which are just as important considerations on oil sands development these days.
Friday, July 13, 2007
China Says Au Revoir Canada - Buenos Dias Venezuela
Is China saying they would rather deal with Venezuela who is nationalizing it oil resources, than Stephen Harper? The media today is full of PetroChina’s announcement yesterday speaking of investing in Canada saying “The environment is not comfortable. We tried to come here and we can’t.”
They went further to say “We sincerely wanted to do something and open up a new market for Canadian crude…but Canada doesn’t want to open up is own markets to us.” OUCH!
So we can thank our "business friendly PM for the $4B pullout of Chinese investment in the Gateway pipeline project to the new Prince Rupert Port that was to carry 400,000 barrels per day.
This smells of bad politics. How much have Mr. Harper and his “New” government succumbed to the status quo of Canadian energy export being essentially to only one market…the American market. How is this in the long term best interest of Canada in a new globalized and interdependent world? Is Harper only interest in Canada being dependent on one market source for our energy?
I am all in favour of continental energy supply. It is a key to the Americans getting out of Iraq – which then need to do sooner than later. I wonder of the wisdom of sacrificing investment, market access and geo-political and even environmental relations with the rest of the world – particularly like China and India - as a consequence of a continental energy arrangement. We essentially have continental energy established under NAFTA – if only the Americans would honour the NAFTA accord in areas like beef and softwood.
America is Canada’s friend and neighbour. In a globalized world as an exporting nation we need many more friends and neighbours. Looks like Alberta better get be ready to go it alone with attracting foreign investment. We need the capital and the markets to optimize the opportunities before us. Mr. Harper is more interested in his relationship with the deceptive and duplicitous Bush administration than the best positioning of Canada. I am no Alberta separatist or even a Firewall supporter but boy oh boy does Harper ever given those perceptions a leg up in this province.
They went further to say “We sincerely wanted to do something and open up a new market for Canadian crude…but Canada doesn’t want to open up is own markets to us.” OUCH!
So we can thank our "business friendly PM for the $4B pullout of Chinese investment in the Gateway pipeline project to the new Prince Rupert Port that was to carry 400,000 barrels per day.
This smells of bad politics. How much have Mr. Harper and his “New” government succumbed to the status quo of Canadian energy export being essentially to only one market…the American market. How is this in the long term best interest of Canada in a new globalized and interdependent world? Is Harper only interest in Canada being dependent on one market source for our energy?
I am all in favour of continental energy supply. It is a key to the Americans getting out of Iraq – which then need to do sooner than later. I wonder of the wisdom of sacrificing investment, market access and geo-political and even environmental relations with the rest of the world – particularly like China and India - as a consequence of a continental energy arrangement. We essentially have continental energy established under NAFTA – if only the Americans would honour the NAFTA accord in areas like beef and softwood.
America is Canada’s friend and neighbour. In a globalized world as an exporting nation we need many more friends and neighbours. Looks like Alberta better get be ready to go it alone with attracting foreign investment. We need the capital and the markets to optimize the opportunities before us. Mr. Harper is more interested in his relationship with the deceptive and duplicitous Bush administration than the best positioning of Canada. I am no Alberta separatist or even a Firewall supporter but boy oh boy does Harper ever given those perceptions a leg up in this province.
Stephen Harper has once again undermined Alberta, his home province, because he can take it for granted - and he does...regularly. He has not done the rest of Canada any favours with this attitude towards China either. It looks more like we will have Harper in power until November 2009 - a whole year longer than George Bush will be President. We all are astonished over how much more harm Bush has done and still can do to the States (and the planet) in the time he has left. Harper is a small player but with up to 16 months more, he can be a disaster akin to Bush if only on a Canadian scale.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Can Alberta Handle Oil Sands Growth Demands?
I note with some consternation the recent media reports about the International Energy Agency around growing global energy demands. There is a media consciousness growing is causing even more focus on the oil sands in Alberta and not all of it is pretty or encouraging.
The pressure is mounting for an even greater expanded and accelerated development to secure North American continental energy supply is going to strain the Alberta economy, society and ecology even more than at present.
Alberta is currently capable of producing just over a 1M barrels per day of oil sands bitumen and is straining and suffering with that level of development. With a potential to expand to 3M by 2020 and 5M by 2030 according to government of Alberta reports but market and political pressures to expand accelerate that production growth is going to be even more problematical for Alberta.
The nine years up to 2004 saw $34B of oil sands investment and a projection (made in 2004-05) of a further $45B by 2010, on a “cautiously estimated basis.” The growing ecological concerns, social disruption and economic havoc such rapid growth has been sobering for thoughtful Albertans for some time now. If the IEA is right, it looks like Alberta “ain’t seen nothin’yet!”
With the IEA report release showing “surging demand in the developing world and the oil-addicted West,” the future is going to be even more challenging than the enormous consequences outlined in the 2004-05 projections. This is ominous for Alberta unless we get a handle on these global realities and their local consequences.
Albertans have to take control over this development on a rational and integrated strategic basis using a long term sustainable, responsible stewardship approach that encourages innovation and requires constant improvement in extraction and reclamation practices. It has to rationalize the development in ways that supports social well being instead of undermining social cohesion and capacity.
There is a place for the market to impact and influence competitive factors for investment, infrastructure development and even to encourage and enable technological innovations. I have no problem with competition but suggest it has to be looked at in terms of its earlier Latin meaning…that of “seeking together” not picking winners and losers.
The marketplace, in terms of oil sands development, is a bit like water is to soup, an essential ingredient, but alas, soup is much more than mere water. An integrated approach to oil sands development requires more than market forces as the operational or the values based perspective lens we need to apply. The future of the oil sands development has to be about creating value but it has to be values based and done within a global context.
This is a potential and a challenge that is much bigger than just how it impacts on Alberta. The oil sands is global in economic scale, it is geo-political as an energy issue and is potentially about the ecological health of the entire planet. Albertans have to be ready to take on these challenges and think this through. We better get very focused, very serious and very engaged about all of this right and NOW!
The pressure is mounting for an even greater expanded and accelerated development to secure North American continental energy supply is going to strain the Alberta economy, society and ecology even more than at present.
Alberta is currently capable of producing just over a 1M barrels per day of oil sands bitumen and is straining and suffering with that level of development. With a potential to expand to 3M by 2020 and 5M by 2030 according to government of Alberta reports but market and political pressures to expand accelerate that production growth is going to be even more problematical for Alberta.
The nine years up to 2004 saw $34B of oil sands investment and a projection (made in 2004-05) of a further $45B by 2010, on a “cautiously estimated basis.” The growing ecological concerns, social disruption and economic havoc such rapid growth has been sobering for thoughtful Albertans for some time now. If the IEA is right, it looks like Alberta “ain’t seen nothin’yet!”
With the IEA report release showing “surging demand in the developing world and the oil-addicted West,” the future is going to be even more challenging than the enormous consequences outlined in the 2004-05 projections. This is ominous for Alberta unless we get a handle on these global realities and their local consequences.
Albertans have to take control over this development on a rational and integrated strategic basis using a long term sustainable, responsible stewardship approach that encourages innovation and requires constant improvement in extraction and reclamation practices. It has to rationalize the development in ways that supports social well being instead of undermining social cohesion and capacity.
There is a place for the market to impact and influence competitive factors for investment, infrastructure development and even to encourage and enable technological innovations. I have no problem with competition but suggest it has to be looked at in terms of its earlier Latin meaning…that of “seeking together” not picking winners and losers.
The marketplace, in terms of oil sands development, is a bit like water is to soup, an essential ingredient, but alas, soup is much more than mere water. An integrated approach to oil sands development requires more than market forces as the operational or the values based perspective lens we need to apply. The future of the oil sands development has to be about creating value but it has to be values based and done within a global context.
This is a potential and a challenge that is much bigger than just how it impacts on Alberta. The oil sands is global in economic scale, it is geo-political as an energy issue and is potentially about the ecological health of the entire planet. Albertans have to be ready to take on these challenges and think this through. We better get very focused, very serious and very engaged about all of this right and NOW!
Monday, July 09, 2007
Teenage Smoking on the Decline
Stats Canada is reporting some progress in the right direction in teenage smoking in a review from February to December 2006. Still a long way to go but these numbers and the trend lines are encouraging. Here is a summary of the findings.
Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey
February to December 2006
Smoking rates among teenagers aged 15 to 19 have declined, according to the latest results from the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS) conducted from February to December 2006.
An estimated 15% of teenagers in this age group were either daily smokers or smoked occasionally in 2006, down from 18% in 2005, the survey found. The rates for this age group were unchanged between 2003 and 2005 at 18%, after falling from 28% in 1999.
The proportion of teenagers who were daily smokers declined from 11% in 2005 to 9% in 2006.
Young women apparently accounted for most of the decline. The smoking rate for girls aged 15 to 19 fell from 18% in 2005 to 14% in 2006. Smoking prevalence among their male equivalents was 16% compared to 18% in 2005.
In the provinces as a whole, overall smoking prevalence remained constant. Estimates show that slightly fewer than 5 million people, or 19% of the population aged 15 and older, reported smoking daily or occasionally in 2006, roughly the same as in 2005.
Provincial differences in smoking prevalence also remained stable, with all provinces within 5 percentage points of the national average of 19%. The lowest rate was in British Columbia, where only 16% of the population smoked.
As well, 37% of respondents in the CTUMS reported being exposed to second-hand smoke at least once a week. Another 12% said they were exposed to second-hand smoke every day.
Respondents were asked about the most common place in which they had been exposed to second-hand smoke in the 30 days prior to the interview, excluding their own home. Just over one-half (51%) said it was at an entrance to a building, 31% cited outdoor patios of a restaurant or bar, 29% cited inside other people's homes, 25% cited inside a car or other vehicle, and 23% cited in the workplace.
THE PENDING ALBERTA TOBACCO CONTROL legislation scheduled for 3rd reading later this year will address many of these second-hand smoke concerns around entrances to buildings, outdoor restaurant and bar patios and workplaces.
Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey
February to December 2006
Smoking rates among teenagers aged 15 to 19 have declined, according to the latest results from the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS) conducted from February to December 2006.
An estimated 15% of teenagers in this age group were either daily smokers or smoked occasionally in 2006, down from 18% in 2005, the survey found. The rates for this age group were unchanged between 2003 and 2005 at 18%, after falling from 28% in 1999.
The proportion of teenagers who were daily smokers declined from 11% in 2005 to 9% in 2006.
Young women apparently accounted for most of the decline. The smoking rate for girls aged 15 to 19 fell from 18% in 2005 to 14% in 2006. Smoking prevalence among their male equivalents was 16% compared to 18% in 2005.
In the provinces as a whole, overall smoking prevalence remained constant. Estimates show that slightly fewer than 5 million people, or 19% of the population aged 15 and older, reported smoking daily or occasionally in 2006, roughly the same as in 2005.
Provincial differences in smoking prevalence also remained stable, with all provinces within 5 percentage points of the national average of 19%. The lowest rate was in British Columbia, where only 16% of the population smoked.
As well, 37% of respondents in the CTUMS reported being exposed to second-hand smoke at least once a week. Another 12% said they were exposed to second-hand smoke every day.
Respondents were asked about the most common place in which they had been exposed to second-hand smoke in the 30 days prior to the interview, excluding their own home. Just over one-half (51%) said it was at an entrance to a building, 31% cited outdoor patios of a restaurant or bar, 29% cited inside other people's homes, 25% cited inside a car or other vehicle, and 23% cited in the workplace.
THE PENDING ALBERTA TOBACCO CONTROL legislation scheduled for 3rd reading later this year will address many of these second-hand smoke concerns around entrances to buildings, outdoor restaurant and bar patios and workplaces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)