Blame Alberta Health Services, blame the government! It's all THEIR fault the ER wait times are out of control. After all, isn't it their fault that the ever more expensive health care system is crumbling? Frankly, it isn't really Alberta Health Services' fault nor the government's. It is Duckett's fault. Duckett and cookie monsters like him. Are YOU eating a cookie right now?
Let me explain my perspective on this. I work for a giant oil company. The shareholders of this oil company all understand that injuries and illnesses are expensive. Very expensive (this is not the official company line). Lost time, incident investigation, impact on share price, retraining, insurance, etc... Fortunately, the shareholders are intelligent people. They figured out how to create a culture in which people think about safety before they do any thing, while they are doing things, and after they are done. Preventing incidents is the number one priority, not for management, but for each and every employee. There are no accidents. Every incident is preventable. You see it, you own it. I've personally asked Vice Presidents to consider not walking while reading a Blackberry so they don't bump into something. Not only do I still work there, they thanked me for the reminder! We are each responsible for ensuring the safety of ourselves and others.
It doesn't end there. Without meddling in people's lives, how can a corporation reduce sick time? Through a health and wellness campaign. Lunchtime fitness and nutrition lectures. A company wide exercise contest. A wellness fair. Flu shots on site. Employee private health check at work. A personal development account that can be used for sports and fitness, health, safety, education and the environment. The list goes on, but I have to tell you a shocking secret: this oil company encourages people to cycle/walk/run to work. It has an enormous bike room and decent shower facilities. Yes, a company that actually sells gasoline and diesel is encouraging its employees to leave their cars at home. Why are they doing this? Healthy employees are more productive, it's cost effective, and aids in employee retention. The company is convinced that it is in it's best interest to care about employees.
So why does it seem that Alberta's Healthcare system doesn't always care for its patients? Essentially, the public are both shareholders in AHS and customers. Citizens put up money in the form of taxes and trust that the healthcare system will be there when they need it. Whenever and where ever they need it, for as long as it takes. No matter what the cause, from heart attacks to sniffles we want service and we want it now. This is where the disconnect happens. Citizens aren't really interested in paying ever increasing taxes to support this utopian health care system. What the people of Alberta demand is more bang for their buck. There are two ways to improve bang without increasing taxes: better management of health care system and reducing demand on the healthcare system.
At the present time, it seems that citizens have little control over the management of the AHS; however, I argue that the bigger bang is in reducing demand on the healthcare system. Increasing demand is one of the main reasons healthcare spending is on the rise. I ask that all citizens put on their AHS shareholder hats and think about what they can do to ensure that taxes for healthcare don't increase. It's not going to be easy. Personal dedication and a cultural shift are required. I know it is possible because my giant oil company is doing it. It will take a little longer and be a little harder, but the citizens of Alberta can make the necessary cultural shift.
Start by thinking about how you can stay out of the ER. Don't just make a list and forget about it. Live it. Own it. It is each citizen's responsibility to look after their own health and the health of others around them. You aren't actually entitled to unlimited healthcare because your fellow Albertans aren't actually willing to pay for that. Bring a veggie tray to the office instead of a box of donuts. Plan to eat a balanced, portioned diet. Exercise regularly. Prevent injury. Relax, have fun and enjoy life. Ask your friends and fellow Albertans to follow your healthy lead. It's that simple folks. If every Albertan does everything they can to be safe and healthy the demand for healthcare will fall. The ER will be available for people who really need it due to unpreventable illness.
Toss your cookies to save Alberta healthcare. Lead the movement to a safe, healthy Alberta. Someone's life depends on it.
Wednesday 24 November 2010
Thursday 18 November 2010
Why Foreign Investment in Alberta's Oil Sands is a Good Thing
I know, I know, many of you wanted to hear about no net loss wetland policy but that will have to wait for another post. I spent the last two posts and all afternoon at work today on the environment and it's just unsustainable. I need an economic interlude.
I've been hearing a lot of economic, well, provincialism. Why are we letting Statoil profit from our resources? Why are we letting China, Korea, and Japan have access to our oil sands? It turns out there are a number of good reasons.
Let's start with the obvious one: money. Current oil sands development plans need upfront investment of about $500 billion dollars in capital, according to Tim Lisevich of BMO Capital Markets. That's a lot of money and we just don't have enough in Canada. Even the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan only has about 96 billion and it doesn't look like they intend to invest it all in the oil sands. The investment of capital in oil sands results in significant stimulation of the Canadian economy. Regardless of where the upfront capital is coming from, Canadians are benefiting from it.
Are foreign interests taking over? Not really. According to Lisevich's presentation at the recent Canadian Heavy Oil Association business conference, Canadian oil sands companies still control most of the resource. There is significant foreign ownership of Canadian oil sands companies but don't worry, the Federal Government that Albertans love so much is helping us out on this one. Foreign investment deals have to be approved through a political process. That means if the people of Canada don't like it, it shouldn't happen. Canada needs money for investment in the oil sands and we have a way of retaining control. Sounds like a good deal to me.
There are other reasons that foreign investment in Alberta's oil sands is a good thing. One of those is the environment. Alberta's environmental regulation of the oil sands is already very stringent by world standards but that doesn't mean we are the world's best environmental stewards. It's just not in our truck-loving nature. In fact, Norway is one of the most advanced countries in the world in terms of environmental stewardship so understand my surprise when people screaming for Green are upset that we let Norway's Statoil invest in our oil sands. Oh my god we might accidentally learn something from them.
There is an interesting balancing act on technology for oil sands extraction. We believe we are the best in the world at extracting bitumen from sand because we are really the only ones doing it. Foreign investors recognize that we do have significant experience that they can benefit from so they are happy to keep us involved in production of our resources. The deep, dark secret is that we don't know everything. There is a lot we can learn and have learned from others. Foreign investment often brings new ways of looking at things and access to technology we didn't know we needed. This means lower costs for oil sands production and that means more taxes and royalty for Albertans.
Let's stop being so provincial and recognize that foreign investment means needed capital, new technology, and world class environmental stewardship practices. All of this means more money for us, and even better environmental stewardship for the next Albertans.
I've been hearing a lot of economic, well, provincialism. Why are we letting Statoil profit from our resources? Why are we letting China, Korea, and Japan have access to our oil sands? It turns out there are a number of good reasons.
Let's start with the obvious one: money. Current oil sands development plans need upfront investment of about $500 billion dollars in capital, according to Tim Lisevich of BMO Capital Markets. That's a lot of money and we just don't have enough in Canada. Even the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan only has about 96 billion and it doesn't look like they intend to invest it all in the oil sands. The investment of capital in oil sands results in significant stimulation of the Canadian economy. Regardless of where the upfront capital is coming from, Canadians are benefiting from it.
Are foreign interests taking over? Not really. According to Lisevich's presentation at the recent Canadian Heavy Oil Association business conference, Canadian oil sands companies still control most of the resource. There is significant foreign ownership of Canadian oil sands companies but don't worry, the Federal Government that Albertans love so much is helping us out on this one. Foreign investment deals have to be approved through a political process. That means if the people of Canada don't like it, it shouldn't happen. Canada needs money for investment in the oil sands and we have a way of retaining control. Sounds like a good deal to me.
There are other reasons that foreign investment in Alberta's oil sands is a good thing. One of those is the environment. Alberta's environmental regulation of the oil sands is already very stringent by world standards but that doesn't mean we are the world's best environmental stewards. It's just not in our truck-loving nature. In fact, Norway is one of the most advanced countries in the world in terms of environmental stewardship so understand my surprise when people screaming for Green are upset that we let Norway's Statoil invest in our oil sands. Oh my god we might accidentally learn something from them.
There is an interesting balancing act on technology for oil sands extraction. We believe we are the best in the world at extracting bitumen from sand because we are really the only ones doing it. Foreign investors recognize that we do have significant experience that they can benefit from so they are happy to keep us involved in production of our resources. The deep, dark secret is that we don't know everything. There is a lot we can learn and have learned from others. Foreign investment often brings new ways of looking at things and access to technology we didn't know we needed. This means lower costs for oil sands production and that means more taxes and royalty for Albertans.
Let's stop being so provincial and recognize that foreign investment means needed capital, new technology, and world class environmental stewardship practices. All of this means more money for us, and even better environmental stewardship for the next Albertans.
Thursday 11 November 2010
Reaction to Alberta Party Environment Policy, Part 2
A policy resolution I can agree with; however, the devil is in the details and some discussion on the key directions would be helpful. Can we take this to the next level?
As I am a year into the process of recovering energy efficiency incentives from all 3 levels of government, I'm not sure how keen I am on having the government administer financial incentives. That said, I wouldn't have increased the insulation in my attic or installed 2 low flow toilets without the incentives. The focus of the energy efficiency act should be on new construction and renovations as this will be the biggest bang for the buck.
On post-secondary programs, let's not be so specific. Renewable energy sources often create more emissions than conventional sources such as natural gas. Rather than develop specific programs, why not incorporate sustainable thinking into all programs? (or is that too big brother?)
Outreach and education - yes, let's step it up a bit.
Expand mass public transit? This is also a great idea. I would add to this by saying we must also make the use of public transit a preferred choice. This means making it comfortable, convenient, and customer friendly.
Generally, well done on this policy. I'll see if I can think of any Key Directions to add to this one. Thoughts?
Be it resolved that the government should make it easier for Albertans to make environmentally sustainable decisions.
Key directions:
• Implement an energy efficiency act that addresses the environmental impact of our built environment and provides incentives to residential and commercial property owners
• Work with post-secondary institutions to develop programs that are oriented towards renewable energy and clean technology careers
• Support and encourage outreach and education campaign that help shift behaviours and attitudes towards sustainable choices
• Work with industries to expand the technologies they can offer consumers to reduce their own consumption, such as smart power metering.
• Expand mass public transit
As I am a year into the process of recovering energy efficiency incentives from all 3 levels of government, I'm not sure how keen I am on having the government administer financial incentives. That said, I wouldn't have increased the insulation in my attic or installed 2 low flow toilets without the incentives. The focus of the energy efficiency act should be on new construction and renovations as this will be the biggest bang for the buck.
On post-secondary programs, let's not be so specific. Renewable energy sources often create more emissions than conventional sources such as natural gas. Rather than develop specific programs, why not incorporate sustainable thinking into all programs? (or is that too big brother?)
Outreach and education - yes, let's step it up a bit.
Expand mass public transit? This is also a great idea. I would add to this by saying we must also make the use of public transit a preferred choice. This means making it comfortable, convenient, and customer friendly.
Generally, well done on this policy. I'll see if I can think of any Key Directions to add to this one. Thoughts?
Wednesday 10 November 2010
Reaction to Alberta Party Environment Policy, Part 1
Thoughtful analysis of policy takes time and I'm having trouble finding that in the aftermath of the Nenshi campaign. I'll start by sharing my reactions to Alberta Party draft policy to get the discussion going.
The key directions are not inspiring - I think the Pembina Institute could do better. By drafting Directive 074, the Alberta Government has already made tailings ponds a top priority. In fact, industry has never really liked them either - they have been researching cost effective ways to deal with tailings since the oil sands began. When I worked at Syncrude, the chatter - even in the Upgrader - was always on the latest in tailings research. Eliminating and even reducing the volume of tailings ponds is no simple matter. This article in Engineering and Mining Journal outlines some of the work that is underway: http://www.e-mj.com/index.php/features/592-oil-sands-operators.html . Bottom line: eliminating and reclaiming tailings ponds is an extreme goal at this point in time. I recommend a change to "Reduce the volume of tailings ponds"
The second point seems to suggest that existing regulations are not effectively and consistently enforced, while not suggesting how a change in that regard might be accomplished. While enforcement is never perfect, I wouldn't say it is lacking.
Helping industry reduce demand for fresh water misses the crux of the problem. Industry currently has less than 10% of Alberta's fresh water allocations. The in-situ oil sands industry is already required to avoid the use of fresh water whenever possible. In fact, Alberta is only water short in the South Saskatchewan River basin. The primary use of water in Alberta is agriculture. While I recognize we can't always count on mother nature to water the crops, there are significant improvements that could be made in how water is used for agriculture. Invest in more effective sprinklers, and use them at night, for example. Let's get some focus on water use in agriculture. Maybe the policy should read: Enable agriculture sector to implement best available technology and practices to minimize fresh water use. Help the farmers, not the oil barons.
Link to Alberta water allocation chart: http://environment.alberta.ca/images/image235.png
Ensuring regulators have full independence and are empowered to act? Have you worked with the rogue ERCB? Or does this refer to a need for more funding to Alberta Environment specifically for enforcement? If I were writing the policy I would focus more on addressing the balance of power between departments of Energy, Environment, and Sustainable Resource Development. They currently spend some time on turf battles. This is understandable given their sometimes competing mandates but well worth addressing to the extent possible.
Next we come to a point I completely agree with: Give resource industries clear, consistent, and accountable direction. This makes a lot of sense given all of the messing around that has gone on with respect to royalties and water policy. Add this to the list on economic policy too.
The final key direction on this list doesn't strike me as a key direction. Perhaps it could be reworded and combined with the second point. Something like: Be proactive, effective, and consistent with enforcement of regulations to avoid environmental crises.
Be it resolved that the Alberta Party views the oil sands as a primary engine of Alberta’s economy. Alberta must optimize the return from our resource-based industries and protect our environment.
Key directions:
• Make eliminating and reclaiming tailing ponds a top priority
• Effectively and consistently enforce existing regulations
• Help industry find new ways to reduce its demand for fresh water
• Ensure regulators have full independence and are empowered to act
• Provide resource industries with clear, consistent and accountable direction
• Don’t wait for an environmental crisis to be more proactive with enforcement
The key directions are not inspiring - I think the Pembina Institute could do better. By drafting Directive 074, the Alberta Government has already made tailings ponds a top priority. In fact, industry has never really liked them either - they have been researching cost effective ways to deal with tailings since the oil sands began. When I worked at Syncrude, the chatter - even in the Upgrader - was always on the latest in tailings research. Eliminating and even reducing the volume of tailings ponds is no simple matter. This article in Engineering and Mining Journal outlines some of the work that is underway: http://www.e-mj.com/index.php/features/592-oil-sands-operators.html . Bottom line: eliminating and reclaiming tailings ponds is an extreme goal at this point in time. I recommend a change to "Reduce the volume of tailings ponds"
The second point seems to suggest that existing regulations are not effectively and consistently enforced, while not suggesting how a change in that regard might be accomplished. While enforcement is never perfect, I wouldn't say it is lacking.
Helping industry reduce demand for fresh water misses the crux of the problem. Industry currently has less than 10% of Alberta's fresh water allocations. The in-situ oil sands industry is already required to avoid the use of fresh water whenever possible. In fact, Alberta is only water short in the South Saskatchewan River basin. The primary use of water in Alberta is agriculture. While I recognize we can't always count on mother nature to water the crops, there are significant improvements that could be made in how water is used for agriculture. Invest in more effective sprinklers, and use them at night, for example. Let's get some focus on water use in agriculture. Maybe the policy should read: Enable agriculture sector to implement best available technology and practices to minimize fresh water use. Help the farmers, not the oil barons.
Link to Alberta water allocation chart: http://environment.alberta.ca/images/image235.png
Ensuring regulators have full independence and are empowered to act? Have you worked with the rogue ERCB? Or does this refer to a need for more funding to Alberta Environment specifically for enforcement? If I were writing the policy I would focus more on addressing the balance of power between departments of Energy, Environment, and Sustainable Resource Development. They currently spend some time on turf battles. This is understandable given their sometimes competing mandates but well worth addressing to the extent possible.
Next we come to a point I completely agree with: Give resource industries clear, consistent, and accountable direction. This makes a lot of sense given all of the messing around that has gone on with respect to royalties and water policy. Add this to the list on economic policy too.
The final key direction on this list doesn't strike me as a key direction. Perhaps it could be reworded and combined with the second point. Something like: Be proactive, effective, and consistent with enforcement of regulations to avoid environmental crises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)