LyrArc Article Gist
There are serious issues facing crude oil production from Alberta tar sands which stem from environmental concerns, and the captal intensive, energy intensive, nature of production from tar sands. According to a recent RAND study energy production from tar sands causes 10-30% more greenhouse gas emissions. Add to that destruction of boreal forest, destruction of bird life, and the contamination of water supplies from the lake size tailings ponds used to store spent water from oil sands projects. Large amounts of steam are needed to separate the dirt from the oil in the tar sands. According to Environmental Defence about 4 billion litres of contaminated water leaked from these tailings ponds and this seepage is polluting rivers in Northern Canada. The technology for trapping and storing the carbon dioxide from the production process is still in the research stage. The other hurdle facing the tar sands development is the price of crude which is around $49 a barrel. While some older tar sands plants can operate even at $30 a barrel, newer operations need $60 or $70 per barrel for acceptable returns, according to Prof. Leach, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Alberta. For these reasons Canadian tar sands production which is now at 1.2 million barrels a day is not likely to go much higher or approach the 3.5 million barrels a day predicted for 2015. Petro-Canada said it would suspend 23.8 billion dollars of expansions in Alberta to tar sands projects, and Canadian Natural Resources is cutting its capital spending in half. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
On the production side output has fallen to an estimated 1.6 million barrels a day(U.S. government and independent analyst estimate) from nearly 3 million barrels a day in 1998. But even this is an estimate, PDVSA says its daily output is about 2.2 million barrels a day, and plans to boost it 4 million barrels a day by 2012. PDVSA points out that the oil exports to the US have remained steady at 1.5 million barrels a day. The content links to oil policy are 1. PDVSA direct involvement in economic development and social goals. 10% of annual investment budget to go to socail programs or about $1 billion a year. For private oil companies in joint ventures with government 3.3% of the local investment budget is required to go to social programs. Oil service companies include community projects such as low income housing in their bids. And spend 5% of the value of the contract in hiring worker owned service companies. Adding road construction and subsidized food programs the spending approaches $8billion for 2005 according to PDVSA. quote: "its not easy... but there will be no more projects with their backs turned to our reality." Rafael Ramirez President of PDVSA told industry executives in June. 2. According to the WSJ PDVSA's diminished production has cut world output by more than 1 %. PDVSA's 2004 financial results show exploration investment was only a meager $60 million in 2004 down from a small $174 million in 2001. Current wells are so old that that the ir output declines by about 23% a year, drilling new wells only keeps production levels stable. This decline can be seen also in the backdrop of the major strike in late 2002 and early 2003. At the time Chavez fired 19000 employees of PDVSA who opposed his policies. The employment levels are only now back to pre-strike levels. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
United Airlines has asked Airbus and Boeing to come up with competing bids for 150 new jetliners, an order worth an estimated $10 billion. After the 9/11 bombings, with the slowdown in air travel and the steep losses airlines suffered from high oil prices, its the overseas airlines that made the big orders. The domestic airlines were content to work with an aging fleet. United's move at this time may be calculated to take advantage of the improving credit situation, and the lower prices of steel and other commodities to get better pricing from manufacturers. The thrust of the order is to replace 11 of United's wide body fleet, the Boeing 747,757,767,and 777 model fleet. The average of these planes is 747-13 years, 777- 10 years, 767- 14 years, 757-17 years. See graph. The most crucual conditions United is looking for are financing arranged by the manufacturer that does not use United's cash, and the flexibility to change the order later if market conditions change. United sees this as amove to get good pricing and financing terms now so that when the planes are delvered over time, spread out over several years, the planes would come in just when air travel is picking up with an economic recovery. If it does not get the terms it wants, United may wait. It has already retired half of its oldest planes, the Boeing 737's, with the remaining half due to be replaced by end of 2009. United's competitor American Airlines, announced in fall 2008, that it wants to order upto 100 Boeing jetliners if it can get new agreements with its pilots union. In spring 2009 American speeded up deliveries of 737-800's to replace some of its old MD-80's. Newer aircraft mean better fuel efficiency, and ways to cover routes that are not possible with older aircraft....

LyrArc Article Gist
This report shows an alarming trend in China which is fueling a real estate bubble similar to the one that Japan, and more recently the U.S., experienced. State owned companies are actively speculating in real estate, and are buying real estate from local governments eager to profit from the real estate boom. Local governments obtain land and build infrastructure on it to raise the price that they can get for it in an auction. In many cases one state owned company outbids another state owned company from different sectors such as oil, chemical, military, telecom and highway. Land records reveal that 82% of land auctions in Beijing in 2010 were won by state-owned companies up from 59% in 2008. The National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has estimated that land prices leaped by 750% from 2003, with half of this happening in 2008-2010. In many cities housing prices have doubled in the last 2 years. The National Bureau estimates that on average these state owned companies paid 27% more for the same piece of land than other bidders. China's $586 billion stimulus and its aggressive lending program by state owned banks may have helped in other ways after the 2008 economic crisis, but in this area it has fueled a real estate speculation boom, with the local government and state owned companies being the key participants in this speculation. Local governments earned an estimated $230 billion in land auctions in 2009. The demolition of older neighborhoods and poorly compensating residents are all part of the effort by local governments to profit from this speculative boom. The implications for the banks are serious. Local governments use other companies created for the purpose to engage in this investment in land. And off-balance sheet accounts create the danger that China's state owned banks may have enormous amounts of debt that is not showing up in the regular accounting. Analysts say that the $1.4 trillion in loans made by state banks in 2009 was twice that in 2008, and a large portion of this was diverted into real estate speculation with records set in land bids and booming prices. All this is happening as China's Ginni coefficient has deteriorated rapidly. And the simple fact remains that even as apartment prices exceeded $200,000 in Shanghai, the average disposable income is about $4000 per year. Prof. Shih of Northwesten University has followed the investment companies of the local governments closely and comes to similar conclusions about the size and implications of this real estate bubble in progress. Shih estimates LIC (local investment companies) debt owed to banks at $1.68 trillion or 34% of China's GDP. See the link to BW's Dexter Roberts. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A good account of the history and weaknesses of the Amtrak based system of rail service in the USA. Questions abound about the queer situation where you find rail popular in Europe and so not prevalent and scarce in the USA. How efficient is Amtrak's rail service in conserving energy? Amtrak uses electricity made from coal, it uses 17% less fuel than a passenger car and 32% less than a airline airplane according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Is this based on new fuel efficient locomotives? No the locomotives are old and Amtrak equipment is aging, so much more fuel efficiency gains could probably be made with new technology and investment. Rail service is coming out of a 40 year period of neglect, and Amtrak itself was probably created to put in one place and hold together a dwindling service, as the passenger services of freight railroads were consolidated to create Amtrak in 1970 by the federal government after the interstate highway system built during the postwar Eishenhower years led to a boom in car travel and the spread of housing to spread out suburbs. At the time private operation was not a consideration as Amtrak itself was a rescue operation to preserve some semblence of rail service before it died out. Now with fresh incentive to do mass transit the whole question being posed is whether private operators should be brought in and would do a better job than Amtrak. Today Amtrak has in all 632 usable rail cars an astonishingly small number, its Amfleet cars are 30 years old, and the Acela trains are 8 years old. In all it carried 25 million passengers last year and in 2008 probably will get to 27 million. Many of these are on long haul routes and where passengers can get to small towns where there is no plane service. Its labor contracts require it to keep these routes. So its a peculiar Amtrak that exists today as a result of historical events and shift to road travel, and it may not be the best vehicle to move the USA towards greater use of mass transit to conserve energy, as its slow to change and takes years to introduce new technology and is not spread out evenly over short and long haul routes. The customer service suffered all these years with no competiton and competition may be healthy for better technology, better service and service on new routes. The UK rail service from London to different parts of the country has been privatised for instance. Better technology and fast service are essential to attract new customers and this is an area in which Europe has made significant progress. At this point even with federal money Amtrak would take years to get new technology from the current manner of writing specification for bids, picking a vendor and waiting for delivery especially as vendors have dwindled because of the lack of demand in prior years....

LyrArc Article Gist
Andrew Rosenfeld, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, and chief executive of an investment advisory firm, says the Public-Private Investment Program proposed by Secretary Geithner has serious flaws. It risks government money, and expects too little from private investors. The government will essentially finance the private investor's purchase of these toxic assets at an auction, with the private investors putting some money of their own, to buy these assets at prices emerging from the auction. It runs right smack into the problem that Secretary Paulson under President Bush faced when he suggested the auction plan as a way for these toxic assets to be sold off to buyers. It was never clear how shuch an auction would work, and whether it would work at all. Meantime the worsening credit crisis required direct injection of capital into banks. Now Secretary Paulson's abandoned effort has been essentially revived in the Geithner program, with the same problems but with the carrot of government taking up most of the risk with its financing. Rosenfeld argues that under this plan the government assumes all the risk of losses, and if private investors make too much money off of it it will create a public outcry and the risk of an AIG type situation. This might lead to lower bids and the money generated for the banks might end up being too small to make a difference. There is a better way he says, and this is for the government using existing authority to seize banks that look insolvent. Its fairer because the government will own the toxic asets, and the bank, and the proceeds for the sale of the bank, and these would be offsetting the cash that it would inject to recapitalize the bank. The way it would do it is to inject cash in the form of Treasury notes as equity in the bank, and at the same time remove the bank's toxic assets and place them in the basement of the Treasury building, while it waits to see what they turn out to be worth. Bank regulators would swap Treasury securties for the toxic assets "at par," which is at the amount of the original purchase price of assets removed. Within a short time, a month or a few months, the bank could be sold to private investors. This is sounder because it takes away the pricing problem which looks like its never going to be resolved, as banks and investors are never going to agree on toxic asset price. And the new bank could start clean and start lending flowing in the economy. If the bank turns out to be so badly managed and with so many bad bets that it cannnot be sold, its essentially insolvent and irrecoverable, so it should be liquidated. Nobel winner Krugman says some of the same things in his columns in the NYT. He has a sense of despair seeing the return of the failed Paulson solution of auctions with a new twist, even as the economy is flailing in the wind, with job loss numbers over 600,000 and jumping each month....

LyrArc Article Gist
Ishaan Tharoor provides a brief history of Russia's intervention in Syria and its role in the Middle East since 1950. This does not mention the Dulles period under Eisenhower in U.S. politics when the U.S. engaged in the Cold War withdrew support for building the Aswan High Dam, thinking that the Soviet Union would not come up with support. The Soviet Union under Krushchev provided $1.2 billion at 2% interest in 1958 for building the Aswan High Dam- constructed from 1960-1970- which helped increase irrigation and crops in the Nile river region and reduced the damage from droughts and floods. Soon after the dam was built it provided about 50% of Egypt's electricity. This was the high point of Soviet Union's economic engagement, latter support was defined by military arms supplies and led to the Six Day War, and the economic stagnation of the economy under Nasser's successors from the military. The Soviet Union was actively engaged in Iran with a Russian and British zone in the country in 1907, soon after the flowering of an effort to write a democratic constitution 1900-1907 for Iran with the help of British intellectuals, similar to the failed effort of the Arab Spring today. In neighboring Afghanistan the Soviet Union fought a long war under Brezhnev, contributing to the unravelling of the economic structure of the Soviet Union before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The British were primarily focussed on protecting oil interests in Iran in the period 1900-1950, yet contacts with British civil society led to the first grasp of democratic constitution and processes in Iran during this period. The American intervention funnelling arms support to the Saddam regime in Iraq in a war Iraq initiated against Iran 1980-1988, marks a low point in American intervention similiar to the Russian intervention in Iran-Iraq-Syria today. It may also define some of the problems of today because of the length of that war, the entrenching of military in the government in Iran, suspicions of the U.S., and the possible sense of a need for nuclear weapons to prevent attacks on Iran, as Pakistan has done in its conflict with India, though this is rarely brought up in discussions. The American arms support intervention, led to a series of cascading conflicts since 1980 with the invasion of Kuwait by the Saddam regime in 1990, the destruction of Shia in the marshlands of Iraq after a flawed peace agreement, and the follow up to that conflict with George Bush's invasion of Iraq on grounds of WMD development in 2003 for the 2003-2011 Second Gulf War including the Surge. The arms support of the Saddam regime in the war it initiated against Iran, was policy designed under President Reagan 1980-1988 following the hostage crisis and the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. The cascading crises with Iran and Iraq may not have led to this level of conflict and disruption, refugees and deaths in the Middle East, if American policymakers had heeded George Washington's advice during his presidency, that your enemy's enemy is not your friend when it comes to framing policy- for this reason Washington as president did not see it in the national interest to get involved in conflicts between Britain and France beginning in 1793, France having aided the American side against the British in the War of Independence. In the Proclamation of Neutrality, Philadelphia, April 22, 1993, he says: "Whereas it appears a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain and the United Netherlands, on the one part, and France on the other; and the duty and interest of the United States require, that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers.." And in a letter to Patrick Henry offering him the position of Secretary of State from Mount Vernon, October 9, 1795, Washington says: "My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic; but to keep the U States free from political connexions with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others, this in my opinion is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home and not by becoming the partizans of Great Britain or France, create dissensions, disturb the public tranquillity, and destroy perhaps for ever the cement which binds the Union." At a time of passionate political debate, it is time to step back and reflect on lessons that can be learned from the founding fathers about the way they tackled the important issues of their time....