Fight the War on Terror Peacefully

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 I was eating breakfast in Houston and I looked at my Google news feed for Algeria and there it was. Terrorists had infiltrated the In Amenas facility, they had hostages, and they were surrounded by the military. Although I hoped the Algerian Special Forces could manage a heroic rescue, I knew then that it would likely end tragically.

The hydrocarbon area in Algeria is protected by the Algerian military, with gendarmes providing area protection and expatriate escorts for each site, and contract security personnel providing on-site access control. My company was not involved in the In Amenas operation, but we were protected by the very same security systems which were failing them.

My next thought was for our people in Algeria and if they were safe. It was right then that I received an email from the Operations Manager at our facility saying that he had already evacuated most of our people to a safer location. A few expatriates and most of the Algerian staff remained at our facility. Flights from Europe to the Algerian desert had been cancelled. We didn't know at this time whether In Amenas was the only target.

Evacuation was not a simple decision. To evacuate people from the site you must first safely complete the half hour drive to the airstrip, after scouting the road and the airstrip for threats. The plane had limited capacity so decisions had to be made about who was most at risk as well as who was most needed to provide leadership on the site. I wondered whether the terrorists knew that most companies would respond by evacuating expats to Hassi Messaoud. What if they had another attack planned there? The airport in Hassi Messaoud was also protected by the military. Vehicles and people were searched before entering. There were military checkpoints throughout the area. Still, it was known that RPGs were in the hands of terrorists in Algeria. If they could get within a few kilometres of the airstrip, they could shoot down a plane on take off or landing. Our evacuating staff had to land there and then our Hassi security team had to drive them safely to our secure compound. Everyone was afraid as the illusion of safety was shattered.

This initial response was only the beginning. After such a horrifying situation, people were asking themselves what risk were they willing to take just to do their jobs every day? And so, as the events unfolded at In Amenas, our crisis response team met every morning to ensure everything in our power was done to protect people. Engineers calculated whether the dining hall roof could support enough sand bags to create a defensive position. Safe rooms were constructed, procedures were changed, and the number of expatriates on site was limited to the capacity of the airplane. A berm was built around the base de vie, checkpoints were added, barricades installed to ensure vehicles had to slow for the checkpoints, surveillance posts were built on top of the beautiful sand dunes, and many other measures were taken.  Still, you could imagine a new way through every defense.

The attack began on Wednesday and lasted until Saturday. On Sunday, I boarded a plane in Houston with my boss heading for a meeting in Algiers. There was a problem with the plane's engine and the flight was delayed and then cancelled. My boss had asked me if I felt comfortable going to Algeria. If I didn't, I could choose not to go. Men fifteen years my senior who had spent years rotating 28 days in and out of Algeria had decided to stop taking that risk. My boss was surprised that I was comfortable continuing to travel to Algeria after In Amenas. The decision is a personal one - choosing how you wish to live - and each person's decision is respected.

I had chosen to move from the safe city of Calgary, where the violent crime rate is low and usually between people who knew each other, to Houston with 10 times the crime rate and frequently random victims. This was a foreign culture for me - people feel very strongly about their right to carry guns and use them, the system of electing constables left me feeling unsure about how the police force worked here. America is a country where mad men with guns all too often go on a shooting spree.

Algeria's capital city of Algiers has a visible police presence, most people don't have guns, and there are vehicle check points on the way into the city. When I traveled there, the company provided a driver and a security professional, and restricted my movements. I stayed in a secure villa with high walls, barbed wire, security staff, cameras, and police stationed at several points on the block. In Houston I stayed in a townhouse by myself. I felt safer in Algiers, and on a rational level, I was safer in Algiers.

In North America, girls are taught that they are not safe outside alone at night. We are taught to be careful, avoid dark alleys, ask someone to walk us home. We learn to live with the fear that a man is lurking somewhere, ready to pounce, targeting us because we are female. We tell ourselves that we are safe because we choose a busy street to walk home at night. We invent ways to protect ourselves. We take self-defense classes. We could imagine a way through every defense, but we choose not to because we don't want to live in fear.

I did not find it difficult to continue traveling to Algeria after the attack. The threat level had not changed - we had always known there was this risk but it did not become real until the attack. Before the attack, we felt the security precautions were over the top. We thought the lieutenant was just being hard on us when we were not allowed to climb the dune after work. We knew vehicles traveling through the desert were not always thoroughly searched and we were not concerned because not much had ever happened. The attack woke everyone up and this made us safer afterwards than we were before.

I was more alert - looking for suspicious behaviour everywhere I went. For every room I stayed in, I thought about where I would hide and how I would escape if there were an attack. The company took down every list from the walls that might indicate which expats were on site. I developed the habit of packing everything in my suitcase before I went to sleep and hiding the suitcase in the closet. If there was an attack in the night, I would make it look as though the room was unoccupied and give no reason to look for me in my hiding place. I knew the odds this would ever make any difference were negligible but we were leaving no stone unturned.

I also reflected on what the greatest risks to my life and well-being were. Driving on I-10 in Houston was my biggest risk. I started taking the tollway more often as it had only two lanes of traffic and this significantly reduced the risk of collision. I thought about how long I was willing to live with the risk level in Houston and what made that worthwhile.

Now, two years after the attack at In Amenas, the world is reeling from a new attack. I am afraid of what this will bring. Calls to hunt down the terrorists and kill them and fight the war on terror only add fuel to the fire. More and more terrorists are created every day. More disturbing to me is that some of them are Canadian. Two of the attackers at In Amenas were born and raised in Canada.

To prevent terrorism, we must prevent people from becoming radicalized in the first place. This is no easy task, but there is knowledge of how to do this. Calgary police have reduced recruitment of kids into gangs because they understand what drives the kids to want to join. On a most basic level, everyone wants to be a part of something important and everyone has a tendency to reject people who don't fit in. What if we all commit to lead a cultural change? To ensure everyone has a place in society.  What if one of our Three Things for Calgary this year is to help a kid who feels left out or help a young adult find their place. What if we recruit people to work for a good cause before they are recruited into a violent group? It will take a long time and a lot of effort but I believe we must do it. You can't kill the terrorists fast enough as long as they are recruiting more. Canada is an amazing country. Let's make sure every Canadian feels a part of that.

Alberta's Gang Reduction Strategy:
https://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/safe/Documents/alberta-gang-reduction-strategy-20101206.pdf
Calgary Police Service 4 Point Gang Strategy:
http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Community-programs-and-resources/Crime-prevention/Gangs-Calgarys-gang-strategy.aspx
Volunteer in Calgary:
http://propellus.org/


In Memoriam

Alf Vik 

Angelito Manaois Jr 

Bunshiro Naito 

Carlos Estrada 

Carson John Bilsland 

Cesar Araos Laluan 

Chung Ngen Chong 

Frederick Martil But-taccio 

Fumihiro Ito 

Garry Samuel Barlow 

German De Guzman 

Gordon Rowan 

Hans M. Bjone 

Hidemi Maekawa 

Hiroaki Ogota 

lluminado Santiago 

lonut Tiberiu Costache 

Jon Jon Morgado Falogme 

Julius Ceasar Caluza Madrid 

Keisuke Kawabata 

Kenneth Hugh Whiteside 

Mihail Marius Bucur 

Moham«l Lamine Lahmar 

Paul Morgan 

Ping Wee Tan 

Raffy Edubane 

Rokuro Fuchida 

Satoshi Kiyama 

Sebastian John 

Silvino Robeniol Imanil Jr 

Stephen Green 

Takashi Yamada 

Tanadori Aratani 

Thomas Snekkevik 

Tore Bech 

Victor Lovelady 

Victor Sneberg 

Wensler Garpino Caringal 

Yann Desjeux 

Yasuji Goto 

Feeling Disenfranchised?

It's election eve in Alberta and although my heart is in the province and I own property in Calgary, I gave up my right to vote in this election when I moved to Houston. Normally, missing an election in Alberta has no influence on the outcome: it has been a foregone conclusion for a long time now, give or take a few seats. This time it really matters. This time it is close and anything could happen.

So how would I vote if I were there? Would I vote PC to ensure that Wildrose stays out? Would I worry about Alberta Party/ NDP/ Liberal vote spliting? Not at all.

The beauty of this election is that most forecasts predict a minority government of one kind or another. And not just any minority government, but a really tight one where 3 or 4 seats could be the difference. In my mind, this means it is time to drop the party lines. Look at the candidates in your riding (hopefully you have met them in person already) and think about which one aligns most closely with your values. Vote for the person because each person in the Legislature will matter when it is their turn to vote. It doesn't matter what party the candidate is in, as long as you believe they will represent you well.

Don't forget to VOTE!

Should Alberta Go Into Debt to Fund the Calgary SW Ring Road?

The first step to solving any problem is to identify exactly what the problem is. The Alberta government has failed to identify the problem before proposing the SW ring road as a solution. It sounds nice: "ring road" but there really is no reason for the road to be a ring. A bypass would be fine, especially as that has already been built on the north side of town. The Alberta government describes the problem quite simply: the Calgary ring road is not complete. The primary reason to study routes for the SW portion of the ring road is that the ring is not a complete circle. No other need has been identified. Albertans should be asking, "is drawing an 8 lane circle around Calgary worth going into debt over?" Yes, that's right, Alberta, there is no money to build this road.

Focus did the study of possible ring road routes and they provide a list of benefits of the SW ring road (SWRR). They start off with some really brilliant ones along the lines of:
1. With a ring road, we could drive goods around in circles
2. There would be no traffic lights
3. It was in the plan (how is this a benefit?)

Then they get into some benefits that get to the heart of the matter:
1. Removes many trucks and traffic from city streets
2. Ability to travel from one quadrant of the city to another without using roads which are closer to the city centre
According to the Focus only 7% of the traffic that might one day use the SWRR is trucks. Note that there is nothing in the benefits about traffic being able to avoid Calgary altogether. The focus is on moving traffic inside the city. The point that the study completely misses is that there are other more effective ways to move traffic inside the city.

Let's talk about where the traffic for the SWRR will come from. Eleven percent of it will come from SE Calgary. Only 25% of the traffic will come from outside of the city. The remainder, a whopping 64% will come from SW Calgary, south of Glenmore Reservoir.

Where are all of these vehicles trying to go? A tiny 8% are trying to go somewhere outside of the city. For those of you who thought a ring road was about bypassing a city, think again. Twenty-one percent of the traffic is actually trying to go downtown. The ring road by its very nature avoids downtown so it's not clear why anyone would use the ring road to go downtown. They will get stuck in traffic part of the way there. Thirty-one percent are heading for MRU and Westhills, while 24% are trying to go all the way to NW Calgary, including UofC and Foothills Medical Centre.

Now we can identify the problem: People south of Glenmore Reservoir are trying to get to downtown, MRU, Westhills, and NW Calgary and it takes them a long time to get to these places because they are trying to drive on congested roads. There 3 ways to limit congestion on roads:
1. Build more roads
2. Stop adding neighbourhoods in the wrong places
3. Use fewer vehicles to move the people

Building more roads is like giving candy to children. The want is never satisfied. People like the roads so much that they want to use them more and then the new roads are full and the people ask for more roads. It is a bottomless pit. Beware of spending your tax dollars on roads.

Why don't we destroy a few more farms/acreages or knock down Spruce Meadows to build a new neighbourhood with no schools or grocery stores? How about because the roads are full? Neither Calgary nor Alberta can afford the infrastructure. If we keep going like this, roads like Macleod Trail and Bow Trail will need to be double-decker freeways just to get people to work. There is actually a surprising amount of space within existing infrastructure to build new homes. That space should be used before new neighbourhoods are added.

Using fewer vehicles to move people is a bit of a puzzle. Why don't people just take city transit? Then we wouldn't need so many roads. Let's think back to where the citizens of SW Calgary are trying to go. Is there a single direct bus from SW Calgary to downtown? No. Is there a direct bus from SW Calgary to MRU and Westhills? No. How many different transit vehicles would one have to use to get from SW Calgary to Foothills Medical Centre? Three.

How about cycling? Calgary has some beautiful pathways around Glenmore Reservoir and along the Elbow River. The speed limit is a bit too low to be ideal for commuting and the pathways don't link up all that well with the places people want to go.

The essence of the problem is that we have not given people any real alternative but to sit in traffic jams in SW Calgary wishing they had a giant freeway with no traffic lights. The giant freeway won't solve the problem for most of the people. They will just sit in different traffic jams a bit closer to their destination. Why don't we ask the province to fund some BRTs for SW Calgary before we start knocking down neighbourhoods? Then people would have choices. It would cost a lot less to buy and operate some bus routes than it would to build an 8 lane freeway through a beautiful recreation area. Why don't we try buses and see if it helps before we start pouring a concrete monster that we may regret? A little bit of investment in the right places could elevate our bike paths to a useful transportation network.

Reframe the question with your MLA. What if we gave you the choice of having a SWRR or BRTs for the SW,SE, and airport? That really could be the choice we are facing. Although I haven't been able to find a cost for the SWRR, the offer to Tsuu T'ina just to acquire land for the road was ~$240 MM. I imagine buying and knocking down hundreds of Calgary homes would be quite expensive, as would building an 8 lane freeway. We could probably have BRTs for everyone every 5 minutes for that price.

Open houses tonight and tomorrow night. Attend and make sure your voice is heard. Details at http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4043.htm

Stay Out of My ER!

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.