President Obama’s first foreign foray took him to Canada. The 19 Feb visit was short in terms of hours, but it was long on ‘conceptual’ substantiveness – and both sides accomplished whatever was planned to be covered during the visit. At the end of the talks the President of United State and Prime Minister of Canada looked more like statesmen than politicians.
The significant part of President Obama’s visit was the half hour one-on-one chat between the two leaders. This tête-à-tête was supposed to be of 10 minutes but the fact that it got extended signifies that the two leaders hit it off well and found a lot of common ground. Both agreed to use each other’s first name in subsequent conversations – that says a lot about establishment of mutual respect and rapport.
People’s general perception is that Harper was previous US president George W’s buddy, but people in the know say that Canadian PM was actually never comfortable in Dubya’s company. It doesn’t seem improbable given that one (Bush) was from a rich background, and a former president’s son and the other comes from middle class. Clearly, there is more common between Obama and Harper.
Now, to the substantiveness. Some folks were looking for so-called ‘substantive’ pronouncements after the talks between the two leaders, and were probably disappointed. But the fact of the matter is that this visit was basically for following reasons:
· Get to know each other;
· Get first hand idea of each other’s perception on issues, like, recession, energy, trade (including protectionism), Afghanistan;
· Lay the foundation for further build up on issues of mutual interest
On all the above counts the visit was a success. The press conference after the talks gave a clear indication of ‘conceptual’ substantiveness. The most important being the agreement on a ‘clean energy dialogue’. President Obama exhibited a very realistic position on the so-called clean energy. He comprehends the GHG issues in a practical perspective whether related to coal based power plants in US, or the oilsands industry of Canada.
His assertion that there was no silver bullet to solve the energy needs of the world was a clear indication that he realises that there was no point in getting carried away by the environmental predictions of doom, instead what is important is to figure out a course of action on global warming which encompasses all the major players, including, China and India.
Obviously, there will have to be follow up from both sides on this conceptual agreement. The scope of this conceptual agreement can potentially expand to include Mexico since President Obama appeared keen to formulate a pan-North American initiative on clean energy.
PM Harper did a good job of mentioning how could Canada tighten its own environmental regulatory laws and compete when its neighbour to the south had no tight regulatory framework, and then went on to praise Obama for now showing leadership on the issue. Harper very cleverly passed on the onus of non-regulation to Bush.
The environmental activists in Canada who seem to be intellectually one-dimensional don’t even know the difference between the amount of GHG emitted from US coal based units and GHG emitted from oilsands units in Canada. These intellectually under-developed two-legged creatures only know how to badmouth oilsands and make a spectacle of themselves by going up on a bridge to hang a poster.
The other conceptual understanding related to the border issue. Harper’s pitch on Canada’s perception of North American security threats was clearly aimed at the American media. At the same time he made it clear that US-Canada border should be managed in such a manner that it should not hinder cross-border trade.
On the issue of trade, whereas President Obama made an observation about environmental and labour clauses should be part of main body of NAFTA, PM Harper made his views known in no uncertain terms that Canada hopes that US will adhere to all the international trade agreements. Harper was clearly alluding towards the ‘Buy American’ clause purportedly included in the USD787 billion US economic stimulus package. So, the two sides got a clear understanding of each other’s position.
The discussion on recession focussed more on how to synergise efforts on both sides of the border to maximise the impact of the stimulus packages implemented in the respective countries. There was, again, a conceptual agreement to coordinate efforts on auto sector. President Obama made it clear that US will keep Canada in the loop on the policy decisions made regarding the big three auto makers.
On Afghanistan, again, there was a conceptual understanding on both sides. Obama didn’t press Canada to extend its troop presence beyond 2011; however, the two sides felt that Afghanistan needs more than simply military solution. The corollary to it is that Canada may be requested to look in to the possibility of contributing in non-military way before and after 2011.
All in all, the working visit of the US President accomplished all that was envisaged by both sides. As well, President Obama made sure to demonstrate his good preparation for this visit by stopping at a market place to buy beaver tail and Canadian cookies for his daughters. Unlike other dignitaries he also took out a crisp Cdn$20 bill to pay for the items he bought. The shopkeeper, however, showed his good gesture by refusing to accept the payment.
President Obama’s parting remark at the press conference was “I would like to come back to Canada”, and after a pregnant pause added, “when it warms up”. One hopes he wasn’t alluding to ‘warming up’ on the part of Canadian leadership. One would hope that PM Harper was warm enough in his conversations with Obama. Harper’s demeanour didn’t seem to suggest anything otherwise. Or, did we fail to notice something that was cleverly hidden under the smiles of the two leaders?!!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
PRESIDENT OBAMA, YOUR CANADA VISIT SHOULD LEAVE BEHIND HOPE FOR BOTH CANADA, AND USA!!
Mr. President,
Canada is eagerly awaiting your visit on 19 Feb. Canadians are thankful that on your first international trip you have chosen Canada. The visit is short – for only about 6 hours – but it is coming at a time when the world is facing the worst economic downturn since the 1930’s.
As you should know by now, US is Canada’s largest trading partner. Canada is also the number one crude oil supplier to US in terms of million barrels per day. You may probably have been told that this crude oil comes from both conventional and unconventional sources – the unconventional source being oilsands, the second largest source of crude oil after Saudi Arabia.
Lumber, beef, engineering goods, agricultural products, and so on – whole host of stuff is exported from Canada to US. In short, Canada’s economy is heavily inter-twined with that of US. Not only trade, these two countries have strategic defence cooperation too – NORAD being a prime example.
Canada is hurting now because the consumers in US are in trouble, not spending as before. The whole world is hurting – Japan reporting their worst trade figures on 16 Feb mainly because their exports have fallen off the cliff. China’s exports too are down. Why? Because the largest consumer society in the world, i.e., US is in recession. By the way, this is not the opportune time to debate whether such huge consumerism is good or bad.
Be that as it may, the question that is paramount in the minds of the Canadians is: what is going to be the outcome of US President’s visit? Will he reassure the Canadians that there will be no protectionism in US policies? Will he reassure Canada that cooperation between the two countries will continue to thrive in oil and gas sector? Is this visit going to reinforce the message that Canada is a trusted, dependable ally and that both countries will continue to cooperate and expand their relationship in an environment of friendship, goodwill and trust.
Mr. President, there may be some issues where the countries may have different perspectives but they are not so divergent so as to impinge on any issue of bilateral nature. Canadians know you are a champion of environment protection and alternative sources of energy is a topic which is close to your heart. But Canadians too are aware of the challenges of global warming, and they are already doing their part to mitigate the situation.
And, this environment thing brings one to the main point. Mr. President, the crux of the matter is that Canadians are hoping that your concern for environment will not become a stumbling block in the area of cooperation in crude supplies to US from Canada, and this specifically relates to oilsands. You may have been briefed about concerns of environmentalists regarding oilsands. One hopes you have been briefed about the measures too that Alberta province has already put in place to meet those concerns.
Mr. President, it needs to be mentioned (you may be already aware though) that scientists till date don’t know the real factors that cause global warming – what they know, however, is that GHG is one of the contributing factor. The scientists also know that GHG contributes to less than 10% of entire global warming phenomenon (but they don’t mention it in the same breath as the catastrophic consequences they narrate almost like a horror story).
The point is, therefore, why oilsands should be singled out and made a whipping boy for all the supposed global warming dangers this world is allegedly facing when the global warming phenomenon itself is not understood fully by the scientific community? Just sensationalising an issue, or creating scare in the minds of people doesn’t help.
A substance in itself is not good or bad, it all depends how it is turned in to a useful thing by humans. Uranium ore in itself is not so dangerous or useful, it all depends how it is processed – whether to turn it in to a nuclear device of destruction or source of energy. Similarly, if oilsands is processed properly and its related environmental aspects are handled adequately, surely then it shouldn’t be a cause of worry to human race, should it?!
Mr. President, you said the other day during your prime time news conference that you want US to be less dependent on ‘foreign oil’ – from Middle East. Canada can contribute significantly towards this objective of US. And no body should carry any feeling of guilt if Canada’s vast oil source helps US, because oilsands is not going to do anything to exacerbate global warming.
Moreover, Mr. President, you are a very sensible and pragmatic person. You are not afraid of embracing the reality. For example, during your recent prime time presser you mentioned a figure of 4.0 million (jobs created or saved) but in later speeches you mentioned a moderated figure of 3.5 million (jobs created or saved). One hopes similar pragmatism will be evident in the matter of cooperation between US and Canada in oil and gas sector.
Crude oil supply from Canada took up a large chunk of this epistle because this could be one of the touchy subjects for discussion between you and Mr. Harper. Thankfully, the other potential sticking point about protectionism has already been addressed suitably in the recent meeting of G-7 finance ministers in Rome. So, hopefully, there should not be any reason for concern from Canada’s side. However, you may like to reinforce the Rome message when you are in Ottawa.
So, as you can see there is cooperation and cooperation only that pervades the relationship between these two great countries. There is hardly any issue that could potentially bring in any stressful moments during the talks – even the arctic sovereignty issue is a matter where the countries have more to gain by forming allied front rather than taking separate lines of action.
The issue of how to save the big three auto makers in both US and Canada may make both sides a bit uncomfortable but given necessary maturity and understanding on both sides this issue will hopefully not bring any sourness between the two leaders.
In the past there have been many instances of sour relationship between the leaders of US and Canada. In one of the worst instances it is said that US President Johnson got so incensed when then Canandian Prime Minister Pearson (while visiting US) called for American withdrawal from Vietnam that Johnson is said to have pinned Pearson to the wall by holding his collars and yelled “You have pissed on my rug”!
One hopes nothing of that sort will happen between you and Mr. Harper. On the contrary PM Harper may like to brush up his knowledge about Chicago White Sox, and you may like to get some briefing on maple syrup as well as on what to say when a Canadian greets saying “Howdy”!
Mr. President, this is the time when the respective leaders need to be source of hope to millions, and not be a harbinger of any impending bad news, least of which should be anything to do with disagreements between them. This is not a good time for nitpicking.
If the Canadians saw you and Mr. Harper standing shoulder to shoulder (metaphorically speaking) at this hour of extremely challenging times, and telling the media how the two countries have agreed to cooperate and expand ties further in all fields including oil and gas, it will bring cheer to millions of Canadians and they will thank you, Mr. President, for the same. And, you know very well that any expanded cooperation will do more good than harm to an average American.
Did we ask for too much?
Sincerely.
Canada is eagerly awaiting your visit on 19 Feb. Canadians are thankful that on your first international trip you have chosen Canada. The visit is short – for only about 6 hours – but it is coming at a time when the world is facing the worst economic downturn since the 1930’s.
As you should know by now, US is Canada’s largest trading partner. Canada is also the number one crude oil supplier to US in terms of million barrels per day. You may probably have been told that this crude oil comes from both conventional and unconventional sources – the unconventional source being oilsands, the second largest source of crude oil after Saudi Arabia.
Lumber, beef, engineering goods, agricultural products, and so on – whole host of stuff is exported from Canada to US. In short, Canada’s economy is heavily inter-twined with that of US. Not only trade, these two countries have strategic defence cooperation too – NORAD being a prime example.
Canada is hurting now because the consumers in US are in trouble, not spending as before. The whole world is hurting – Japan reporting their worst trade figures on 16 Feb mainly because their exports have fallen off the cliff. China’s exports too are down. Why? Because the largest consumer society in the world, i.e., US is in recession. By the way, this is not the opportune time to debate whether such huge consumerism is good or bad.
Be that as it may, the question that is paramount in the minds of the Canadians is: what is going to be the outcome of US President’s visit? Will he reassure the Canadians that there will be no protectionism in US policies? Will he reassure Canada that cooperation between the two countries will continue to thrive in oil and gas sector? Is this visit going to reinforce the message that Canada is a trusted, dependable ally and that both countries will continue to cooperate and expand their relationship in an environment of friendship, goodwill and trust.
Mr. President, there may be some issues where the countries may have different perspectives but they are not so divergent so as to impinge on any issue of bilateral nature. Canadians know you are a champion of environment protection and alternative sources of energy is a topic which is close to your heart. But Canadians too are aware of the challenges of global warming, and they are already doing their part to mitigate the situation.
And, this environment thing brings one to the main point. Mr. President, the crux of the matter is that Canadians are hoping that your concern for environment will not become a stumbling block in the area of cooperation in crude supplies to US from Canada, and this specifically relates to oilsands. You may have been briefed about concerns of environmentalists regarding oilsands. One hopes you have been briefed about the measures too that Alberta province has already put in place to meet those concerns.
Mr. President, it needs to be mentioned (you may be already aware though) that scientists till date don’t know the real factors that cause global warming – what they know, however, is that GHG is one of the contributing factor. The scientists also know that GHG contributes to less than 10% of entire global warming phenomenon (but they don’t mention it in the same breath as the catastrophic consequences they narrate almost like a horror story).
The point is, therefore, why oilsands should be singled out and made a whipping boy for all the supposed global warming dangers this world is allegedly facing when the global warming phenomenon itself is not understood fully by the scientific community? Just sensationalising an issue, or creating scare in the minds of people doesn’t help.
A substance in itself is not good or bad, it all depends how it is turned in to a useful thing by humans. Uranium ore in itself is not so dangerous or useful, it all depends how it is processed – whether to turn it in to a nuclear device of destruction or source of energy. Similarly, if oilsands is processed properly and its related environmental aspects are handled adequately, surely then it shouldn’t be a cause of worry to human race, should it?!
Mr. President, you said the other day during your prime time news conference that you want US to be less dependent on ‘foreign oil’ – from Middle East. Canada can contribute significantly towards this objective of US. And no body should carry any feeling of guilt if Canada’s vast oil source helps US, because oilsands is not going to do anything to exacerbate global warming.
Moreover, Mr. President, you are a very sensible and pragmatic person. You are not afraid of embracing the reality. For example, during your recent prime time presser you mentioned a figure of 4.0 million (jobs created or saved) but in later speeches you mentioned a moderated figure of 3.5 million (jobs created or saved). One hopes similar pragmatism will be evident in the matter of cooperation between US and Canada in oil and gas sector.
Crude oil supply from Canada took up a large chunk of this epistle because this could be one of the touchy subjects for discussion between you and Mr. Harper. Thankfully, the other potential sticking point about protectionism has already been addressed suitably in the recent meeting of G-7 finance ministers in Rome. So, hopefully, there should not be any reason for concern from Canada’s side. However, you may like to reinforce the Rome message when you are in Ottawa.
So, as you can see there is cooperation and cooperation only that pervades the relationship between these two great countries. There is hardly any issue that could potentially bring in any stressful moments during the talks – even the arctic sovereignty issue is a matter where the countries have more to gain by forming allied front rather than taking separate lines of action.
The issue of how to save the big three auto makers in both US and Canada may make both sides a bit uncomfortable but given necessary maturity and understanding on both sides this issue will hopefully not bring any sourness between the two leaders.
In the past there have been many instances of sour relationship between the leaders of US and Canada. In one of the worst instances it is said that US President Johnson got so incensed when then Canandian Prime Minister Pearson (while visiting US) called for American withdrawal from Vietnam that Johnson is said to have pinned Pearson to the wall by holding his collars and yelled “You have pissed on my rug”!
One hopes nothing of that sort will happen between you and Mr. Harper. On the contrary PM Harper may like to brush up his knowledge about Chicago White Sox, and you may like to get some briefing on maple syrup as well as on what to say when a Canadian greets saying “Howdy”!
Mr. President, this is the time when the respective leaders need to be source of hope to millions, and not be a harbinger of any impending bad news, least of which should be anything to do with disagreements between them. This is not a good time for nitpicking.
If the Canadians saw you and Mr. Harper standing shoulder to shoulder (metaphorically speaking) at this hour of extremely challenging times, and telling the media how the two countries have agreed to cooperate and expand ties further in all fields including oil and gas, it will bring cheer to millions of Canadians and they will thank you, Mr. President, for the same. And, you know very well that any expanded cooperation will do more good than harm to an average American.
Did we ask for too much?
Sincerely.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
STIMULUS PACKAGES GALORE WORLDWIDE, BUT WHAT ABOUT PUNISHING THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ECONOMIC MESS?
Two words have become household words all around the globe – 'stimulus package' – as the world tries to grapple with the worst economic situation since the 1930’s. US President Obama made several pit stops to campaign for quick passage of the stimulus package his administration put together. Eventually, a package watered down to USD787 Billion was passed by the US Congress.
Similarly, European countries are also implementing their stimulus packages. Situation in eurozone is also spurring urgent action after some quite dismal economic news. European economies contracted in the fourth quarter of last year, with some countries registering the worst figures in decades. The eurozone economy shrank by 1.5% in Q4 2008 and 1.2% on the year. Germany's economy shrank by 2.1% compared with the previous quarter, its worst quarterly performance since 1990.
Canada announced its own economic stimulus package recently in their parliament. Australia too made known their economic measures. China has already put in to motion a huge two year stimulus package to arrest downward slide of their economy. India has also implemented its own package in two instalments, some more may follow.
The G-7 meeting of its Finance Ministers and heads of the central banks in Rome on 14 Feb agreed to avoid protectionism and work in concert to pull the world out the current economic morass. The next meeting will be of G-20 countries in April to review progress of the steps agreed to by the Group in Dec 2008 meeting in Washington.
The above is a quick recap of steps being taken by the countries, which control more than 80% of world economy, to come out of the economic woes the world has gotten into. All this news is encouraging for the millions who lost their jobs, lost their homes, went in to bankruptcies, and went from a life of hope to despair.
But amidst all the abovementioned frenetic activities and hullabaloo to get the world economy back on track, has the world forgotten about the people who brought about this situation in the first place? What about bringing those blighters to justice and punishing them? How can those ‘canine-offsprings’ just say sorry and wash their hands off the accountabilities they carried with their responsibilities?
Because of the unbridled greed of some money spinning wheeler dealers in US (and to some extent in UK, and Germany) a housing bubble got created and this bubble gobbled up trillions of dollars. Between 2004 and 2006 US interest rates rose from 1% to 5.35%, triggering a slowdown in the US housing market.
Homeowners, many of whom could only barely afford their mortgage payments when interest rates were low, began to default on their mortgages. Default rates on sub-prime loans - high risk loans to clients with poor or no credit histories - rose to record levels. The impact of these defaults were felt across the financial system world over as many of the mortgages had been bundled up and sold on to banks and investors.
The questions are: what the hell was the US Fed Chairman doing during the years (2004-2006) when the seeds of the global disaster were being sown? Why could he not get out of his self imposed dogmatic intellectual strait-jacket of free-market mechanism principles? Why the hell was there no oversight of what was going on in the American financial market?
The people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their hard earned savings and probably many years of their future would like to know who were those female parent-fornicators who authorised the sub-prime racket to start! Who were those wedlock-products who encouraged this greed infested activity to engulf the society? Who was authorising the sub-prime mortgage business in Freddie Mac or Fannie May?
Why in God’s name nobody – either from Fed Reserve or SEC or some other Federal agency – bothered to take notice of what was going on in the sub-prime market? The sub-prime racket was not just a 4-6 month event which could have gone unnoticed. It went on for months, and yet nobody took notice?
Why did somebody in the Fed not take notice of the warning bells rung by Prof Krugman (who won Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008)? Prof Krugman was repeatedly warning about the dangerous path US economy was treading on.
And then, who were those female parent-fornicators in the big banks of US and Europe who blindly authorised investing in securitised mortgages? Some of these wedlock-product bank executives took home millions of dollars as bonuses!! Why and how are these canine-offsprings allowed to go scot free and not punished?
So, the question is: why have those people responsible for bringing about this financial mess in US, which caused domino effect world over, not been brought to justice? Why should they not be punished? In fact, why are they not being punished? Why should they not be thrown in to some Gitmo kind of prison and made to ruminate over the cataclysmic financial disaster they caused to happen?
Are these people not some kind of criminals? They may not have committed homicide, or rape. But the truth is that they have ‘raped’ the financial system. Their rapacious greed has robbed millions of innocent investors of their hard earned savings. The sub-prime mortgage can be compared to an organised ‘racket’ to ‘swindle’ millions of ordinary people who were ‘enticed’ by the rosy situations.
These people are responsible for having caused untold miseries to millions around the world, why should they not be flogged - publicly? It would be primitive, is it? Let it be primitive, but at least it will send a strong message to the world. Go ask the laid off worker what is primitive or not primitive – he doesn’t bother for all this intellectual debates which are luxury of the well-heeled. He/she wants secure economic future!
So, what is the plan for bringing these perpetrators of the current financial wrong-doing to justice? Is there no law under which these cold-blooded white collared diabolical schmucks can be tried and punished? Can these female parent-fornicators just say ‘I’m deeply sorry’ and can go un-punished?
The millions of people affected by the current economic upheaval are cursing those rascals day in and day out. Whether or not the actual perpetrators of current economic crisis (and those who were supposed to keep an oversight on them, and didn’t do their job) get punished by the law of this planet only time will say, but one thing is clear that if there is something called ‘natural justice’ these gutter insects will burn in the hell fire during their lifetime.
Similarly, European countries are also implementing their stimulus packages. Situation in eurozone is also spurring urgent action after some quite dismal economic news. European economies contracted in the fourth quarter of last year, with some countries registering the worst figures in decades. The eurozone economy shrank by 1.5% in Q4 2008 and 1.2% on the year. Germany's economy shrank by 2.1% compared with the previous quarter, its worst quarterly performance since 1990.
Canada announced its own economic stimulus package recently in their parliament. Australia too made known their economic measures. China has already put in to motion a huge two year stimulus package to arrest downward slide of their economy. India has also implemented its own package in two instalments, some more may follow.
The G-7 meeting of its Finance Ministers and heads of the central banks in Rome on 14 Feb agreed to avoid protectionism and work in concert to pull the world out the current economic morass. The next meeting will be of G-20 countries in April to review progress of the steps agreed to by the Group in Dec 2008 meeting in Washington.
The above is a quick recap of steps being taken by the countries, which control more than 80% of world economy, to come out of the economic woes the world has gotten into. All this news is encouraging for the millions who lost their jobs, lost their homes, went in to bankruptcies, and went from a life of hope to despair.
But amidst all the abovementioned frenetic activities and hullabaloo to get the world economy back on track, has the world forgotten about the people who brought about this situation in the first place? What about bringing those blighters to justice and punishing them? How can those ‘canine-offsprings’ just say sorry and wash their hands off the accountabilities they carried with their responsibilities?
Because of the unbridled greed of some money spinning wheeler dealers in US (and to some extent in UK, and Germany) a housing bubble got created and this bubble gobbled up trillions of dollars. Between 2004 and 2006 US interest rates rose from 1% to 5.35%, triggering a slowdown in the US housing market.
Homeowners, many of whom could only barely afford their mortgage payments when interest rates were low, began to default on their mortgages. Default rates on sub-prime loans - high risk loans to clients with poor or no credit histories - rose to record levels. The impact of these defaults were felt across the financial system world over as many of the mortgages had been bundled up and sold on to banks and investors.
The questions are: what the hell was the US Fed Chairman doing during the years (2004-2006) when the seeds of the global disaster were being sown? Why could he not get out of his self imposed dogmatic intellectual strait-jacket of free-market mechanism principles? Why the hell was there no oversight of what was going on in the American financial market?
The people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their hard earned savings and probably many years of their future would like to know who were those female parent-fornicators who authorised the sub-prime racket to start! Who were those wedlock-products who encouraged this greed infested activity to engulf the society? Who was authorising the sub-prime mortgage business in Freddie Mac or Fannie May?
Why in God’s name nobody – either from Fed Reserve or SEC or some other Federal agency – bothered to take notice of what was going on in the sub-prime market? The sub-prime racket was not just a 4-6 month event which could have gone unnoticed. It went on for months, and yet nobody took notice?
Why did somebody in the Fed not take notice of the warning bells rung by Prof Krugman (who won Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008)? Prof Krugman was repeatedly warning about the dangerous path US economy was treading on.
And then, who were those female parent-fornicators in the big banks of US and Europe who blindly authorised investing in securitised mortgages? Some of these wedlock-product bank executives took home millions of dollars as bonuses!! Why and how are these canine-offsprings allowed to go scot free and not punished?
So, the question is: why have those people responsible for bringing about this financial mess in US, which caused domino effect world over, not been brought to justice? Why should they not be punished? In fact, why are they not being punished? Why should they not be thrown in to some Gitmo kind of prison and made to ruminate over the cataclysmic financial disaster they caused to happen?
Are these people not some kind of criminals? They may not have committed homicide, or rape. But the truth is that they have ‘raped’ the financial system. Their rapacious greed has robbed millions of innocent investors of their hard earned savings. The sub-prime mortgage can be compared to an organised ‘racket’ to ‘swindle’ millions of ordinary people who were ‘enticed’ by the rosy situations.
These people are responsible for having caused untold miseries to millions around the world, why should they not be flogged - publicly? It would be primitive, is it? Let it be primitive, but at least it will send a strong message to the world. Go ask the laid off worker what is primitive or not primitive – he doesn’t bother for all this intellectual debates which are luxury of the well-heeled. He/she wants secure economic future!
So, what is the plan for bringing these perpetrators of the current financial wrong-doing to justice? Is there no law under which these cold-blooded white collared diabolical schmucks can be tried and punished? Can these female parent-fornicators just say ‘I’m deeply sorry’ and can go un-punished?
The millions of people affected by the current economic upheaval are cursing those rascals day in and day out. Whether or not the actual perpetrators of current economic crisis (and those who were supposed to keep an oversight on them, and didn’t do their job) get punished by the law of this planet only time will say, but one thing is clear that if there is something called ‘natural justice’ these gutter insects will burn in the hell fire during their lifetime.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
ARE SOME CANADIAN & EUROPEAN OIL COMPANIES LESS MONEY SAVVY THAN SOME OF THE US COMPANIES?
The present economic downturn has hit Canada too fairly badly, and jobs are evaporating by the day. The January job loss figures indicate that Ontario province suffered the most. This is understandable due to the contagion of auto industry ills crippling the big three American auto companies affected the companies to the north of the border.
But the province which till middle of last year was riding a wave of big investments is also suffering from increasing number of full time job losses – Alberta. Till last year Alberta’s economy was riding high, fuelled by big investments in oilsands projects. But suddenly a lightning bolt hit these projects in Q4 last year.
As per Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) its own 2008 forecast of oil sands production of 3.4 million billion per day by 2015 has been scaled back to 2.9 million billion per day, gathering pace to 3.7 million per day to 5.4 million billion per day by 2030, compared with its previous target of 5 million billion per day.
CERI further states that Canadian oil sands is going to stagnate, capital investment over the next 11 years will be cut 31% from a forecast made only 3 months ago and will need WTI prices above USD 70 per barrel to resume growth and expansion.
A number of mega oilsands projects have been put on hold, and almost all the projects are being reviewed from the point of view of CAPEX cost reduction. What is hurting the job market is the stalling of engineering work done in Calgary and Edmonton, and absence of new construction jobs related to oilsands.
But what is most curious is that the mega projects of some Canadian oil companies like Petrocanada and Suncor, CNRL have had to face major axing consequent to these companies hitting panic buttons. Their balance sheets and cash flow have suddenly come under such tremendous pressure that they have had to cancel large chunks of the projects, and mothball the remaining alive portions.
European player Shell cancelled its second upgrader expansion and put on hold their upstream expansion part. Other Europeans companies like Total and Statoil were chickening out even before the lightning struck the oilsands. These two companies had already been dithering for quite sometime.
Interestingly, on the other hand, Canadian oil companies developing their oilsands assets in collaboration with US based oil companies, like Encana (partnering with ConocoPhillips) and Husky (with BP) don’t seem to have run in to such panicky situation. Albeit, they also have had to scale back investment in some of their new projects but not in that drastic manner as Petrocan and Suncor have had to do.
But most interestingly, Imperial Oil whose majority shareholder is ExxonMobil (69.6%) didn’t have to press any panic button. Imperial is going ahead with their Kearl project, said to be a $7-8 billion Imperial Oil and ExxonMobil Canada project. Exxon are known to be notoriously conservative in their investment and economic rate of return analyses.
However, this can’t be said about another American company – ConocoPhillips – whose in-situ oilsands project in Surmont (in partnership with Total) has been put on a very slow track. It is not clear whether cash flow considerations were the only reason for slowdown or Total’s lack of enthusiasm was a contributing factor too.
At any rate, however, the above throws up a question: Why did the US based companies not have to drastically alter their oilsands project development plans? Why did they not seem to be pressing panic buttons and manifesting knee-jerk reactions? Are the US based oil companies better in their working out their investment strategies? Are their economic analyses models more stringent and powerful?
Surely, the world at large doesn’t get to know the details of project planning and investment decision making by various companies, therefore, one would not be in a position to provide conclusive answers to above questions. But then the folks losing their jobs in Alberta must be wondering why the heck the CEO’s of those companies, that went in to a paralytic limb late last year and started hacking down their oilsands projects, were paid the big bucks till recent past!!
It is the job of the top management to make sure that the investment decisions are rational, realistic and have been tried out for different scenarios. Why did some of the Canadian oil companies have to bite so much that they could not chew? If they didn’t have a US partner who could process their bitumen (if they went for bitumen only route) why did they not look for a partner before opting for the whole meal deal project implementation strategy, i.e., going all the way to upgraders in the first phase itself, or think of a safer project investment model?
One wonders what kind of intelligent thinking some of these companies did before committing such huge outlays! Do they realise that because of their unreasonable over-exuberance various engineering and construction companies in Alberta mobilised huge work forces, and now the same work force is being laid off in droves?!!
Some of those CEO’s will say in their defence that nobody in the world could predict the recession coming to US and the consequent slowdown in fastest growing economies like China and India, and hence their assumptions of oil price (we don’t know what they were) were justified. But that does not mean that they ought to have considered a high crude price and worked out their current and future revenues. Why were they not conservative in their assumptions and what prevented them to develop manageable portions of new projects – manageable with respect to revenue generation during project implementation phase?
May be there is lot to learn from the way ExxonMobil folks carry out their project development and economic analyses. It is not for nothing that this company has such a huge cash reserve that it could, if it wanted, buy any oil company in the world.
And, you know what, it is said that Exxon likes to implement new projects during economic downturns so that the project costs be kept relatively less. They can afford to do so –because of their strong cash position. So, you see – they set themselves up for making more money; because when good times return their revenues improve while their initial CAPEX had been lesser (because they set up their project during economic downturn). Makes sense, doesn’t it!
One feels sad to see so many engineers, tradespeople getting out of their jobs in Alberta only because some folks who in their own flawed wisdom – one can certainly they their wisdom was flawed – contributed towards huge growths in engineering and construction companies in Alberta. Currently, those companies don’t have projects to assign their folks to!
Now, all eyes are on US president’s visit. Will Mr. Obama’s visit on 19 Feb bring more bad news for oilsands projects, or, will he provide some words of comfort with regard to continued cooperation with Canada in developing this resource on a long term basis? Surely, US wishes to move away from dependence on foreign oil from ‘hostile regimes’. Be that as it may, the families of the jobless are praying for some good news – are the Gods listening?
But the province which till middle of last year was riding a wave of big investments is also suffering from increasing number of full time job losses – Alberta. Till last year Alberta’s economy was riding high, fuelled by big investments in oilsands projects. But suddenly a lightning bolt hit these projects in Q4 last year.
As per Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) its own 2008 forecast of oil sands production of 3.4 million billion per day by 2015 has been scaled back to 2.9 million billion per day, gathering pace to 3.7 million per day to 5.4 million billion per day by 2030, compared with its previous target of 5 million billion per day.
CERI further states that Canadian oil sands is going to stagnate, capital investment over the next 11 years will be cut 31% from a forecast made only 3 months ago and will need WTI prices above USD 70 per barrel to resume growth and expansion.
A number of mega oilsands projects have been put on hold, and almost all the projects are being reviewed from the point of view of CAPEX cost reduction. What is hurting the job market is the stalling of engineering work done in Calgary and Edmonton, and absence of new construction jobs related to oilsands.
But what is most curious is that the mega projects of some Canadian oil companies like Petrocanada and Suncor, CNRL have had to face major axing consequent to these companies hitting panic buttons. Their balance sheets and cash flow have suddenly come under such tremendous pressure that they have had to cancel large chunks of the projects, and mothball the remaining alive portions.
European player Shell cancelled its second upgrader expansion and put on hold their upstream expansion part. Other Europeans companies like Total and Statoil were chickening out even before the lightning struck the oilsands. These two companies had already been dithering for quite sometime.
Interestingly, on the other hand, Canadian oil companies developing their oilsands assets in collaboration with US based oil companies, like Encana (partnering with ConocoPhillips) and Husky (with BP) don’t seem to have run in to such panicky situation. Albeit, they also have had to scale back investment in some of their new projects but not in that drastic manner as Petrocan and Suncor have had to do.
But most interestingly, Imperial Oil whose majority shareholder is ExxonMobil (69.6%) didn’t have to press any panic button. Imperial is going ahead with their Kearl project, said to be a $7-8 billion Imperial Oil and ExxonMobil Canada project. Exxon are known to be notoriously conservative in their investment and economic rate of return analyses.
However, this can’t be said about another American company – ConocoPhillips – whose in-situ oilsands project in Surmont (in partnership with Total) has been put on a very slow track. It is not clear whether cash flow considerations were the only reason for slowdown or Total’s lack of enthusiasm was a contributing factor too.
At any rate, however, the above throws up a question: Why did the US based companies not have to drastically alter their oilsands project development plans? Why did they not seem to be pressing panic buttons and manifesting knee-jerk reactions? Are the US based oil companies better in their working out their investment strategies? Are their economic analyses models more stringent and powerful?
Surely, the world at large doesn’t get to know the details of project planning and investment decision making by various companies, therefore, one would not be in a position to provide conclusive answers to above questions. But then the folks losing their jobs in Alberta must be wondering why the heck the CEO’s of those companies, that went in to a paralytic limb late last year and started hacking down their oilsands projects, were paid the big bucks till recent past!!
It is the job of the top management to make sure that the investment decisions are rational, realistic and have been tried out for different scenarios. Why did some of the Canadian oil companies have to bite so much that they could not chew? If they didn’t have a US partner who could process their bitumen (if they went for bitumen only route) why did they not look for a partner before opting for the whole meal deal project implementation strategy, i.e., going all the way to upgraders in the first phase itself, or think of a safer project investment model?
One wonders what kind of intelligent thinking some of these companies did before committing such huge outlays! Do they realise that because of their unreasonable over-exuberance various engineering and construction companies in Alberta mobilised huge work forces, and now the same work force is being laid off in droves?!!
Some of those CEO’s will say in their defence that nobody in the world could predict the recession coming to US and the consequent slowdown in fastest growing economies like China and India, and hence their assumptions of oil price (we don’t know what they were) were justified. But that does not mean that they ought to have considered a high crude price and worked out their current and future revenues. Why were they not conservative in their assumptions and what prevented them to develop manageable portions of new projects – manageable with respect to revenue generation during project implementation phase?
May be there is lot to learn from the way ExxonMobil folks carry out their project development and economic analyses. It is not for nothing that this company has such a huge cash reserve that it could, if it wanted, buy any oil company in the world.
And, you know what, it is said that Exxon likes to implement new projects during economic downturns so that the project costs be kept relatively less. They can afford to do so –because of their strong cash position. So, you see – they set themselves up for making more money; because when good times return their revenues improve while their initial CAPEX had been lesser (because they set up their project during economic downturn). Makes sense, doesn’t it!
One feels sad to see so many engineers, tradespeople getting out of their jobs in Alberta only because some folks who in their own flawed wisdom – one can certainly they their wisdom was flawed – contributed towards huge growths in engineering and construction companies in Alberta. Currently, those companies don’t have projects to assign their folks to!
Now, all eyes are on US president’s visit. Will Mr. Obama’s visit on 19 Feb bring more bad news for oilsands projects, or, will he provide some words of comfort with regard to continued cooperation with Canada in developing this resource on a long term basis? Surely, US wishes to move away from dependence on foreign oil from ‘hostile regimes’. Be that as it may, the families of the jobless are praying for some good news – are the Gods listening?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S VISIT TO CANADA – SOME CRITICAL BILATERAL ISSUES NEED TO BE HANDLED CAREFULLY BY BOTH SIDES!
President Obama, reverting to the tradition of newly elected US presidents, will be visiting Canada on his first overseas trip. This trip, dubbed essentially a working visit, will have to grapple with some tricky issues which are bound to be on the table.
One of them is the controversial provision that President Obama’s US$800+ billion economic stimulus plan is proposed to contain. The proposed legislation aims to ban foreign iron and steel used in any building project undertaken under the massive stimulus plan - which could potentially cut out a major portion of the Canadian steel industry's $7 billion in annual exports.
If this provision got implemented to the letter it would be severely detrimental for Canada, so Canada is rightly worried. It should be, it is a serious matter coming as it does when the economy is already in recession. Canada views the proposed legislation, and correctly so, as a protectionist measure on part of US.
It was heartening to see that Canada is being proactive in this matter rather than fume and fret. International Trade Minister Stockwell Day did well to speak with US Trade Representative Peter Allgeier at the economic forum in Davos, Switzerland which ended on Feb 1. Later Day told reporters that he was cautiously optimistic that something could be worked out.
Canada has also conveyed to US that this type of protectionism is exactly what helped push the Great Depression forward at the start of the 1930s. On a parallel track Canadian PM Harper said in Ottawa that such measures would see the U.S. renege on its "international obligations" to eliminate barriers to worldwide trade.
It is a good positive strategy. The message has reached US prior to Obama’s planned visit on Feb 19 – that Canada would like this issue to be resolved to mutual benefit. US acknowledged that it had got Canada’s message. US White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on 30th Jan "the administration is reviewing that provision" and acknowledged the concerns on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.
Another important matter that would need to be discussed and mutually beneficial path forward identified relates to oilsands fronted crude/bitumen supply to US. Oilsands has attracted lot of attention, of late, from environmentalists. As well, President Obama places great importance on protection of environment. But at the same time Canada is the largest supplier of crude to US – crude both from conventional and non-conventional sources. This pitches tarsands in a dichotomous situation.
Other issues that are likely to form part of the conversation between Obama and Harper are: war against terror – Canada’s role in Afghanistan, NAFTA, ailing auto sector, claims to Arctic assets and security of passage to that area, cross-border security, intelligence sharing, global economic reform.
President Obama is obviously briefed on the importance of US-Canada ties – ranging from NORAD to crude oil. Obama’s economic team led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is putting together US economic recovery package which is expected to be finalised by middle of February. This timeline adds urgency regarding what assumptions the package is going to be predicated on.
If Geithner et al base their package including some protectionist premise (like, the one relating to steel), that certainly will not portend well for both US and Canada. Or, will there be some selective waiver for friends (Canada), or, the package will prefer not to mention such contentious premises at all?
Obama and Geithner would do well to be aware that a very diverse group of leading economists of all ideological stripes met at a preparatory conference for Davos in Dubai in November 2008. The group said in a formal statement that one of their chief tasks is "advocating against the deregulation backlash." An update right before Davos by this same group stressed the importance of "openness to trade" and "competitive markets."
Both Obama and Harper should be cognizant of what someone said in Davos about the economic downward tailspin that we are in: “I tell you we have not turned the corner, we can't see the corner, we don't even know where the corner is." In such a situation creating new protectionist walls, or getting in to some kind of head-butting will be damaging for either parties.
It is, therefore, imperative that US and Canada handle the bilateral issues carefully and with sensitiveness. Political rhetoric sound good from the podiums placed in political rallies but if they are carried to the policy making blueprint without evaluating the various pros and cons, that is opposite of everything that embodies the word ‘prudence’.
In cooperation with Canada there is so much to be gained for US – towards its goal of gaining independence from crude imports from ‘hostile regimes’, war on terror, joint US-Canada defence partnerships and so on. Canada has already offered a bi-nation energy agreement, and also proffered to participate in environment related joint-action plan. Canada is aware of what needs to be done to make tarsands industry more environment friendly, and actions are already being implemented in that direction.
Finally, the current economic crisis is one such which can be ridden out of only through collaborative, combined effort – on a global basis. Such efforts will be rendered severely ineffective if countries resort to raising trade walls. President Obama has mentioned on a number of occasions that US will ‘lead’ again. Surely, raising protectionist measures (e.g., use of US steel only for US projects) will not raise the US to the moral high ground that it seeks to regain in post-Bush era.
One of them is the controversial provision that President Obama’s US$800+ billion economic stimulus plan is proposed to contain. The proposed legislation aims to ban foreign iron and steel used in any building project undertaken under the massive stimulus plan - which could potentially cut out a major portion of the Canadian steel industry's $7 billion in annual exports.
If this provision got implemented to the letter it would be severely detrimental for Canada, so Canada is rightly worried. It should be, it is a serious matter coming as it does when the economy is already in recession. Canada views the proposed legislation, and correctly so, as a protectionist measure on part of US.
It was heartening to see that Canada is being proactive in this matter rather than fume and fret. International Trade Minister Stockwell Day did well to speak with US Trade Representative Peter Allgeier at the economic forum in Davos, Switzerland which ended on Feb 1. Later Day told reporters that he was cautiously optimistic that something could be worked out.
Canada has also conveyed to US that this type of protectionism is exactly what helped push the Great Depression forward at the start of the 1930s. On a parallel track Canadian PM Harper said in Ottawa that such measures would see the U.S. renege on its "international obligations" to eliminate barriers to worldwide trade.
It is a good positive strategy. The message has reached US prior to Obama’s planned visit on Feb 19 – that Canada would like this issue to be resolved to mutual benefit. US acknowledged that it had got Canada’s message. US White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on 30th Jan "the administration is reviewing that provision" and acknowledged the concerns on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.
Another important matter that would need to be discussed and mutually beneficial path forward identified relates to oilsands fronted crude/bitumen supply to US. Oilsands has attracted lot of attention, of late, from environmentalists. As well, President Obama places great importance on protection of environment. But at the same time Canada is the largest supplier of crude to US – crude both from conventional and non-conventional sources. This pitches tarsands in a dichotomous situation.
Other issues that are likely to form part of the conversation between Obama and Harper are: war against terror – Canada’s role in Afghanistan, NAFTA, ailing auto sector, claims to Arctic assets and security of passage to that area, cross-border security, intelligence sharing, global economic reform.
President Obama is obviously briefed on the importance of US-Canada ties – ranging from NORAD to crude oil. Obama’s economic team led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is putting together US economic recovery package which is expected to be finalised by middle of February. This timeline adds urgency regarding what assumptions the package is going to be predicated on.
If Geithner et al base their package including some protectionist premise (like, the one relating to steel), that certainly will not portend well for both US and Canada. Or, will there be some selective waiver for friends (Canada), or, the package will prefer not to mention such contentious premises at all?
Obama and Geithner would do well to be aware that a very diverse group of leading economists of all ideological stripes met at a preparatory conference for Davos in Dubai in November 2008. The group said in a formal statement that one of their chief tasks is "advocating against the deregulation backlash." An update right before Davos by this same group stressed the importance of "openness to trade" and "competitive markets."
Both Obama and Harper should be cognizant of what someone said in Davos about the economic downward tailspin that we are in: “I tell you we have not turned the corner, we can't see the corner, we don't even know where the corner is." In such a situation creating new protectionist walls, or getting in to some kind of head-butting will be damaging for either parties.
It is, therefore, imperative that US and Canada handle the bilateral issues carefully and with sensitiveness. Political rhetoric sound good from the podiums placed in political rallies but if they are carried to the policy making blueprint without evaluating the various pros and cons, that is opposite of everything that embodies the word ‘prudence’.
In cooperation with Canada there is so much to be gained for US – towards its goal of gaining independence from crude imports from ‘hostile regimes’, war on terror, joint US-Canada defence partnerships and so on. Canada has already offered a bi-nation energy agreement, and also proffered to participate in environment related joint-action plan. Canada is aware of what needs to be done to make tarsands industry more environment friendly, and actions are already being implemented in that direction.
Finally, the current economic crisis is one such which can be ridden out of only through collaborative, combined effort – on a global basis. Such efforts will be rendered severely ineffective if countries resort to raising trade walls. President Obama has mentioned on a number of occasions that US will ‘lead’ again. Surely, raising protectionist measures (e.g., use of US steel only for US projects) will not raise the US to the moral high ground that it seeks to regain in post-Bush era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)