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?!!
Showing posts with label oilsands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oilsands. Show all posts
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.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
HOW CANADA CAN TURN THE CURRENT CHALLENGES IN TO OPPORTUNITIES!!
Canadians, potential investors (and probably to some extent its southern neighbour) are waiting with bated breath to see what happens in Ottawa on Jan 29 when the budget will be put to vote. The current Prime Minister Stephen Harper, of Progressive Conservatives (PC), is leading a minority government. If for whatever reasons the main opposition parties - Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois - don't like the budget presented on Jan 27, they can pull the government down by voting against it.
Now, let us step sideways and look at some key aspects currently confronting Canada. First, Canada is also in the grip of recession as are the other G-7 countries; the good news, however, is that Canada's economic woes are least as compared to any other G-7 country. Albeit, Canada's economic problems are less compared to its G-7 peers but they are not trivial either.
The unemployment figures released on 9th Jan paint a grim picture, and coupled with current contractionary tendencies of the economy (exacerbated by recessionary perception in the minds of the Canadians) the future doesn't portend encouraging signs.
When a country passes through tough times, if you had to pick up one thing that is needed to pull the country out of trouble what would you choose? Without doubt, the answer would be: 'real' leadership. It is a well known fact, to even non-academicians, that right leadership is fundamental to devising necessary strategy/suite of actions, convincing the people of the country to embrace the same and implementing it in timely and proper manner.
This is where current Prime Minister Stephen Harper is now called upon to show his mettle as a true leader. History is beckoning him to step up to the plate and do whatever is necessary, in the interest of the nation, to take Canada out of this present economic upheaval and put it back on the path of sustained economic growth. Fall of PC govt on Jan 29 has a potential for another election. That will certainly not be a welcome thing for the Canadians; the nation can ill afford a period of instability at this stage.
So, whichever way you look at from, the present challenge is, in fact, the right opportunity for PM Harper to deliver and carve a niche for himself in the Canadian history. People say of Harper, based on their past experience, that he is prone to stubbornness, often short sighted, less open-minded, afraid of facing the nation (prefers to disappear at the time of crisis), poor negotiator, untactful, impulsive, unable to grasp the big picture, and so on.
But this is the ideal opportunity for Harper to prove people wrong. Can he do it? Sure, why not? But to do that he has to overcome some mental blocks and fixations. If you watch his body language, his choice of words on critical/difficult issues one often finds him exhibiting lack of confidence, lack of substance and trying to cover that up with sheepish smile. And, in the process of overcoming his lack of confidence, on many occasions Harper ends up overdoing his policy action. This has been a major weakness in his style of functioning.
But he can right his this weakness. He need not feel weak-kneed, nor find his confidence somewhat less. Why? Because, after all, he led his party to be the largest single party in the parliament in the recent elections. Surely that is indicative of his ability to connect with people in most parts of Canada, his ability to articulate, and to get good grasp on various issues.
So, instead of being diffident, sheepish, apologetic on key issues, he needs to go out there full blast in confidence and take the bull by the horn - understand what the problems are, what the possible options are, what the challenges in implementing them are, and what needs to be done politically and nationally to implement them.
After grasping all that, Harper needs to rise above the fear of failure (this is fundamental to succeed in life) and go about his business of showing what true leadership is and stand tall amidst his political peers. Once he is not afraid to fail and at the same time puts national interest to be paramount he would be able to deal with any Layton, Ignatieff, Duceppe and come out trumps. And, best of all, the Canadians will back him up in his efforts to pull the country out of the morass.
It will not be so simple as stated above, but once Harper plays on the front foot with confidence (and full grasp of the situation/solutions) he will automatically be able to come out with necessary tactfulness, negotiation skills, political savvy required to implement what is best for the country in the present moment.
His actions will, however, have to demonstrate that he is above petty politics, he knows what is good for Canada, he is clearheaded, honest, not bumbling and that he is most suited to be the captain of the team. The more he will succeed, the more will his confidence grow and he will keep firing on all cylinders. Gradually, his path will appear more smoother, with less hurdles.
Meanwhile, there is good news that Mr. Obama has decided to visit Canada after taking over as President of US. This provides a gilded opportunity to Canada to forge stronger partnership with US on various fronts - energy, trade and defence. But to be able to do so Harper has to first survive the vote on budget. If Harper can be the decisive Prime Minister the country needs him to be, surely he can not only survive the vote, he can further strengthen his position.
If PC's continue to lead the country after the budget vote, Harper will get the opportunity to meet with and to convince Obama about the strategic importance of Canada-US relations, about oilsands' relevance to US (and the steps Alberta is taking to address environment related concerns), clear confusions regarding NAFTA, cooperation on defence related matters. But Harper would do well not to carry any past baggage (i.e. close ties with outgoing president Bush etc) or raise any thorny issue like Arctic sovereignity etc.
One of the drawbacks of Canadian leaderships' 'thinking' in last 50-60 years has been that on international level it was not expansive enough, and not contextually politically savvy. (An aside: On national level the 'thinking' seemed to have been debilitatingly overshadowed by Anglo-philic predilections.) In any case, it is a golden opportunity for Harper to show that his policies are entirely Canada-centric, pragmatic, streetsmart on all issues - be it environment, Islamic radicalism, natural resources, economic world order or anything else.
A strong and vibrant Canada is also in the interest of USA, and world in general. Canada's journey towards becoming a strong and vibrant nation can be sure and certain provided Steven Harper gets his act correct. He probably is aware that he will be judged by history by his performance at this critical and historic juncture.
Mr Harper, opportunity is there for you to get your name etched in golden letters - but to do that you will have to rise to the occasion and grab it!
Now, let us step sideways and look at some key aspects currently confronting Canada. First, Canada is also in the grip of recession as are the other G-7 countries; the good news, however, is that Canada's economic woes are least as compared to any other G-7 country. Albeit, Canada's economic problems are less compared to its G-7 peers but they are not trivial either.
The unemployment figures released on 9th Jan paint a grim picture, and coupled with current contractionary tendencies of the economy (exacerbated by recessionary perception in the minds of the Canadians) the future doesn't portend encouraging signs.
When a country passes through tough times, if you had to pick up one thing that is needed to pull the country out of trouble what would you choose? Without doubt, the answer would be: 'real' leadership. It is a well known fact, to even non-academicians, that right leadership is fundamental to devising necessary strategy/suite of actions, convincing the people of the country to embrace the same and implementing it in timely and proper manner.
This is where current Prime Minister Stephen Harper is now called upon to show his mettle as a true leader. History is beckoning him to step up to the plate and do whatever is necessary, in the interest of the nation, to take Canada out of this present economic upheaval and put it back on the path of sustained economic growth. Fall of PC govt on Jan 29 has a potential for another election. That will certainly not be a welcome thing for the Canadians; the nation can ill afford a period of instability at this stage.
So, whichever way you look at from, the present challenge is, in fact, the right opportunity for PM Harper to deliver and carve a niche for himself in the Canadian history. People say of Harper, based on their past experience, that he is prone to stubbornness, often short sighted, less open-minded, afraid of facing the nation (prefers to disappear at the time of crisis), poor negotiator, untactful, impulsive, unable to grasp the big picture, and so on.
But this is the ideal opportunity for Harper to prove people wrong. Can he do it? Sure, why not? But to do that he has to overcome some mental blocks and fixations. If you watch his body language, his choice of words on critical/difficult issues one often finds him exhibiting lack of confidence, lack of substance and trying to cover that up with sheepish smile. And, in the process of overcoming his lack of confidence, on many occasions Harper ends up overdoing his policy action. This has been a major weakness in his style of functioning.
But he can right his this weakness. He need not feel weak-kneed, nor find his confidence somewhat less. Why? Because, after all, he led his party to be the largest single party in the parliament in the recent elections. Surely that is indicative of his ability to connect with people in most parts of Canada, his ability to articulate, and to get good grasp on various issues.
So, instead of being diffident, sheepish, apologetic on key issues, he needs to go out there full blast in confidence and take the bull by the horn - understand what the problems are, what the possible options are, what the challenges in implementing them are, and what needs to be done politically and nationally to implement them.
After grasping all that, Harper needs to rise above the fear of failure (this is fundamental to succeed in life) and go about his business of showing what true leadership is and stand tall amidst his political peers. Once he is not afraid to fail and at the same time puts national interest to be paramount he would be able to deal with any Layton, Ignatieff, Duceppe and come out trumps. And, best of all, the Canadians will back him up in his efforts to pull the country out of the morass.
It will not be so simple as stated above, but once Harper plays on the front foot with confidence (and full grasp of the situation/solutions) he will automatically be able to come out with necessary tactfulness, negotiation skills, political savvy required to implement what is best for the country in the present moment.
His actions will, however, have to demonstrate that he is above petty politics, he knows what is good for Canada, he is clearheaded, honest, not bumbling and that he is most suited to be the captain of the team. The more he will succeed, the more will his confidence grow and he will keep firing on all cylinders. Gradually, his path will appear more smoother, with less hurdles.
Meanwhile, there is good news that Mr. Obama has decided to visit Canada after taking over as President of US. This provides a gilded opportunity to Canada to forge stronger partnership with US on various fronts - energy, trade and defence. But to be able to do so Harper has to first survive the vote on budget. If Harper can be the decisive Prime Minister the country needs him to be, surely he can not only survive the vote, he can further strengthen his position.
If PC's continue to lead the country after the budget vote, Harper will get the opportunity to meet with and to convince Obama about the strategic importance of Canada-US relations, about oilsands' relevance to US (and the steps Alberta is taking to address environment related concerns), clear confusions regarding NAFTA, cooperation on defence related matters. But Harper would do well not to carry any past baggage (i.e. close ties with outgoing president Bush etc) or raise any thorny issue like Arctic sovereignity etc.
One of the drawbacks of Canadian leaderships' 'thinking' in last 50-60 years has been that on international level it was not expansive enough, and not contextually politically savvy. (An aside: On national level the 'thinking' seemed to have been debilitatingly overshadowed by Anglo-philic predilections.) In any case, it is a golden opportunity for Harper to show that his policies are entirely Canada-centric, pragmatic, streetsmart on all issues - be it environment, Islamic radicalism, natural resources, economic world order or anything else.
A strong and vibrant Canada is also in the interest of USA, and world in general. Canada's journey towards becoming a strong and vibrant nation can be sure and certain provided Steven Harper gets his act correct. He probably is aware that he will be judged by history by his performance at this critical and historic juncture.
Mr Harper, opportunity is there for you to get your name etched in golden letters - but to do that you will have to rise to the occasion and grab it!
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
CANADIAN OILSANDS AND ITS RELEVANCE TO USA's ENERGY STRATEGY
As Jan 20, 2009 draws near when President-elect Obama takes office, there is a bit of apprehension on the northern side of US border as to what trajectory will the new administration follow with regard to energy strategy, and what implications it might have for Canadian oilsands.
The apprehension gets more acute because of the choice of Secretary Energy-designate Dr. Steven Chu. The perception in the market is that Dr. Chu is a strong proponent of nuclear energy (though he has concerns about how to dispose off nuclear waste), and also a known supporter of alternative sources of energy.
But Dr. Chu's personal views about oilsands is not available in great detail; it is said that he probably doesn't hold this abundant resource, available so close to US, in very high esteem. One of the possible reasons for this is attributed to the prevailing environment related brouhaha surrounding this unconventional source of petroleum.
It is true that synthetic crude oil produced from oilsands generates more GHG as compared to conventional crude oil production, and there are concerns about the tailings management aspect of oilsands too.
But before going too much in to concerns surrounding oilsands, and what it does to the environment, it is important that we pause here for a moment or two, and concentrate on this GHG thing and its so-called contribution to global warming.
It is true that there has been some increase in global temperature in the past decade but what the general public does not get to focus on and/or get to know about, in proper detail, are the following very pertinent aspects related to global warming:
The apprehension gets more acute because of the choice of Secretary Energy-designate Dr. Steven Chu. The perception in the market is that Dr. Chu is a strong proponent of nuclear energy (though he has concerns about how to dispose off nuclear waste), and also a known supporter of alternative sources of energy.
But Dr. Chu's personal views about oilsands is not available in great detail; it is said that he probably doesn't hold this abundant resource, available so close to US, in very high esteem. One of the possible reasons for this is attributed to the prevailing environment related brouhaha surrounding this unconventional source of petroleum.
It is true that synthetic crude oil produced from oilsands generates more GHG as compared to conventional crude oil production, and there are concerns about the tailings management aspect of oilsands too.
But before going too much in to concerns surrounding oilsands, and what it does to the environment, it is important that we pause here for a moment or two, and concentrate on this GHG thing and its so-called contribution to global warming.
It is true that there has been some increase in global temperature in the past decade but what the general public does not get to focus on and/or get to know about, in proper detail, are the following very pertinent aspects related to global warming:
- That global warming has been taking place during last tens of decades (even when there was no oilsands, or coal based industries); that global warming is cyclical
- That Scientists have not been able to provide any convincing explanation as to why global temperatures went up cyclically in the past decades when industrialization was no where near current levels
- That scientists in the world don't know even today, or can not explain conclusively as to what is/are the real cause(s) of global warming (all that the environmentalists do is to keep shouting from the roof tops is that CO2 is the villain)
- That seabed methane release has a significant impact on global warming but scientists have not been able to offer any proper explanation on this phenomenon
- That scientists have not been able to understand and/or predict accurately the interrelationship between cooling of earth, that's taking place since the big bang event happened, and GHG effect
- That scientists are not clear how and why La Nina effect negates the so called GHG effect and allegely causes colder spell globally (average temperature of globe in 2008 was 0.3 degree celcius less than previous years, and this is attributed to La Nina effect)
- That CO2 emissions contribute at best around 5% to overall GHG scenario
- That oilsands' CO2 emission is a small component of overall global CO2 emission quantities
All I want to highlight to people is that as of present, scientists DONOT know, I repeat, the scientists DONOT know for certain what are real causes of global warming phenomenon. So, when the scientific community does not know the real causes of global warming, then why the hell they convey just a portion of the whole story (namely the GHG effect) to people and keep trumpeting about it? May be there is some agenda behind it!
Yes, CO2 may be contributing to GHG effect but it is not THE villain which it is made out to be for global warming, and by logical understanding of the aforementioned bullet points it is amply clear that oilsands is not THE villain which can potentially cause some kind of 'disaster' to this planet.
I am not a lobbyist belonging to any oil company nor am I trying to gloss over the concerns relating to GHG emissions. I am a rational thinker who does not jump on any bandwagon just because it is fashionable to do so which seems to be the case with a number of eminent people when it comes to environment. I don't see any virtue in sticking any environment related poster on my back and crying my voice hoarse about some doom and gloom scenario for this planet without having a clue as to what I am talking about.
The bullet points mentioned above do not, by any stretch of imagination, suggest that oilsands industry should abandon its technological endeavours to minimise CO2/SO2 emissions, or should not adopt better tailings management processes.
In fact, Canadian province of Alberta, which has the largest oilsands deposit in the world, has taken a giant step towards mitigation of CO2 issue by allocating $2Billion for carbon capture and sequestration. As well, the provincial government is incentivising the oilsand companies towards adopting innovative strategies for effectively managing the environment un-friendly aspects of oilsands processing.
Now, it is well known that Mr. Obama in his election rhetoric mentioned frequently that he would like US to be less and less dependent on Middle-East oil. One of the faster ways to achieve this is to get oil supplies from Canada - whether from conventional or unconventional sources. And, Canada is poised to play its part with so many of the oil companies willing to invest in oilsands industry.
One of the most vital advantages for US in expanding US-Canada oil ties is the geo-political angle. Canada is a close ally of US - militarily and otherwise - NORAD is one example of US-Canada alliance. Canada is a politically stable country, follows democratic system of governance, has a strong and unbiased judicial system, and shares a historic relationship with US. Canada is a country which US can trust and rely on in good or bad times.
Guided by these premises only some Canadian oil & gas companies like, Encana, Husky have formed strategic partnership with US oil companies to process the bitumen supplied from Alberta to across the border to south. Some US companies like, ConoccoPhillips, Imperial Oil (owned by Exxon-Mobil) are implementing projects to produce bitumen from oilsands and transport the same via pipelines to their refineries in US. All this bodes well for US from the standpoint of having stable assured supply of oil without the fear of any disruption.
But the apprehension is that under the new dispensation if some folks in the US Dept of Energy in their over enthusiasm start to throttle the bitumen supply from Canada because some chest thumping ignoramuses are portraying it to be THE evil causing all environment aberrations, then it will be more damaging to US's long-term energy strategy of becoming independent of Middle East oil.
Canada will hurt obviously because its biggest customer (US) will not have been buying its bitumen. In such a situation Canada will then have to look for other customers - China seems to be prime candidate to fill in the slot vacated by US. This certainly won't be good from US's geo-politico-military game plans. But then Canada will not be liable to be held responsible for entry of a new buyer for the abundant bitumen because after all Canada also needs to earn revenue for its own economy.
One hopes the new US Secretary of Energy will be guided by pragmatic and a rationalist's approach while at the same time remaining fully cognizant of the rock solid time tested US-Canada relationship and its contribution to US's interests and strategies.
No one disputes that alternative sources of energy should be explored and developed but that approach need not be predicated on strangling a stable source of energy (oilsands) based on unsubstantiated cause-and-effect scenarios attributed to it. Hopefully, the new US administration will not allow its vision and judgement to be clouded by irrational populism, and therefore will not stray in to alleys which don't lead to actualization of interests of USA and one of its closest allies - Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)