January 2, 2008 Vol. 33 No. 22

Family at the core of the Christmas season

Patience is a virtue and never is that virtue tested more than during the Christmas season.
Although we would all love our holidays to be that of a Norman Rockwell painting few of them are.
In fact, I would hazard a guess few of us have ever enjoyed a traditional Christmas — mom, dad, children, grandmas and grandpas, aunts, uncles, cousins and so on. More of us, I believe, struggle through Christmas balancing the needs of multiple family units.
My parents have been divorced for more than 20 years so my memories of a traditional Christmas are as foggy as a Saskatchewan highway.
In its place my own family has had to endure a hectic Christmas schedule over the years.
For years we have had to try and make an appearance at both sides of my family while trying our best not to upset the other. It has been a painful juggling act and one that usually results in Christmas balls crashing to the floor after another failed holiday at home.
It has been made worse in recent years as my brother has married into another broken family meaning we cannot spend Christmas Day together. Instead we share only a few minutes on Christmas Eve before he rushes off to see one of the four families he must spend time with over the holidays.
For many, happy holidays is one of the biggest oxymorons in the English language.
However, I have always been the one to preach patience when it comes to issues that have to do with family and the heart — two critical, and often, painful subjects.
Once again this Christmas I loaded up the clan for the journey east to see my side of the befuddled family as we do every other year.
Once again I headed out on Highway 1 with immense trepidation. How are we going to balance all of our familial responsibilities? Who is going to feel jilted this year? How many beer does dad have in his fridge because I am going to need them?
Sometimes, not always, but sometimes patience pays dividends.
Although I only spent 60 minutes with my brother, his wife and their new baby and even less with my cousin and his new wife, it was a wonderful Christmas.
It just seemed everything worked out and everyone was in the Christmas spirit. Whatever grudges that have been there in the past were swept away this year.
We spent a couple of great days with my dad and his family. My kids love their jolly, old grandpa and he is as low maintenance as it gets.
In contrast, my mom’s side is as high maintenance as a runway model. However, this year the couple of days we spent with my mom were equally as special. Even my kids, who often cringe in the corner when they have to sit with extended family for long periods became involved in the conversations. My son spent all evening across from “old Uncle Harry and Aunt Fern” talking about whatever.
On the way home, despite a faulty heater in the van, I could not help but smile. It was the closest thing to a “family” Christmas I have had in years and I was so proud of my own family. This is usually a difficult time, but this year they embraced this holiday perhaps because they realize no one knows when it will happen again.
It was indeed a Merry Christmas.

Guest Column -

Junior oil companies feel royalty pinch

BY AL KING
CONTRIBUTOR

I cannot agree with Mr. Stelmach and company with this new royalty schedule. Polls show that many people are unhappy with his action, and rightly so. Somehow, I would suggest the Alberta Government is treading on dangerous ground.
To change royalty rates from time to time is understandable and I feel that governments should do so, but not at the expense of many of its citizens.
It is my opinion that Albertans have been receiving their fair share for a long time. This has been very apparent by the vitality displayed in almost all facets of Alberta’s economy. It should be acknowledged that the average income for Albertans last year was $9,000 more than the average for Canada.
I would suggest that the “fair share commission” (FSC) did not consider all the facts and figures available to them when they prepared their report. How much input did they allow from junior oil companies — if any? Besides, the short time they took to prepare the report would indicate not a lot of time was spent checking all of the details and data.
Some of the oil companies are very large, but in Alberta most are not. Many employ about 10 employees or so. These junior oil companies drilled 18 per cent of all new wells drilled last year. Not all wells are productive — I would estimate from research, that about one in seven to 10 are productive, and not all of these are good producers. It requires one year from commencement of drilling until production starts; somewhat expensive. It should be made public that the royalty on a price of $75 per barrel of oil will climb from $29 to $47. This does not leave much for expenses and profit to enable a junior oil company to reinvest back into the economy.
Stelmach’s royalty schedule will not really hurt the big oil companies, in fact it is structured to appease the “big boys.” However, it will force many junior companies to close shop. When this happens, as I am sure it will, rigs will head for Montana and/or Saskatchewan where they will be welcome even by Premier Calvert. These companies will probably employ local help which will put many of our people out of work.
Losing the junior oil companies from peripheral areas will see the suffering of hospitality and service industries culminating in the loss of jobs in all of these sectors. Many young farmers who derive part of their income being employed as drillers, roughnecks, surveyors, etc. in the off-months will have hardships. These people are trying to make a living and attempting to educate their families — this is not easy.
I wonder how many folks are aware that last year alone the Alberta Government derived $4 billion from oil and gas leases alone. Any lease not drilled on within one year of signing must be renewed. Many of these leases were bought by junior oil companies. Cost to junior oil companies is extremely high and should have been factored into the rates.
Gas producers should not be subject to the same rates as the oil companies. I wonder if Mr. Stelmach’s commission considered what junior oil companies do for the economy? Somehow, I do not think so.
To survive these companies do and must invest back into the business world to keep solvent. Therefore, we Albertans are getting the benefits of their profits. Do the big oil companies? Think about where the corporate head offices are located; California, Texas, New York and Toronto — guess where the profits go.
Many oil stocks have fallen since Stelmach’s announcement. What is a fair share? “Ralph Bucks” once in a generation, or continued growth in the economy where our future generations can be sure of a job and education. By drastic changes such as are planned for the future, what may we expect when many of our present industries are gone? In my opinion, an increase of about four per cent in the royalties would have been adequate, with another small percentage in a year. With small increases our oil industry would be given an opportunity to move to a more diverse economy.
The Stelmach government’s rhetoric of cancelling contracts whether oil companies like it or not smacks of the questionable tactics often employed by disreputable developing world regimes such as those found in Venezuela or Bolivia. Ed, I though I voted for a Conservative government.
Some of what our government is going to do regarding the royalty changes sounds very familiar to what Pierre Trudeau and his NEP did — it would be a sin to have Ed Stelmach and Pierre Trudeau in the same camp.
A good name takes decades to earn but can be lost in a very short time.
I am looking forward to the next Provincial Conservative convention where they vote on the leadership review, the results of which could be very interesting.

Here are my bold predictions for 2008 I don’t know exactly when you will be reading this other than I know it will be 2008. We had to be at the press on Dec. 29 so you can be sure my predictions were written before then. Following are my bold predictions for 2008: A vote of non confidence will be tabled with regards to the federal budget in March and we will head back to the polls in the spring. The Conservatives will win another minority and continue to govern. The Liberals will remain close to the same number, but the NDP will drop a few seats. Provincially, Premier Ed Stelmach will survive until after the federal election and then call a provincial election for the early fall. He will win a majority, but lose a few more seats. This will be his first mandate to govern. His popularity will slowly start to increase. On the local scene all will remain status quo and it will be a non-eventful year other than strong rumours of the 32nd Street bridge construction to be announced in early 2009. Rona and Costco will top the list of new box stores which will announce plans to grace the Okotoks skyline. Lights will finally be installed at the intersection on top of the hill at the new Keith GM and Okotoks Vet Clinic corner. At least one professional golfer will test positive for use of performance enhancing drugs. The Calgary Flames will make the playoffs, but they will flame out in the first round again. Detroit will win the Stanley Cup. The Calgary Stampeders will only lose one game in regular season play and go on to win the Grey Cup. The Okotoks Junior A Oilers will finish second and make it to the Alberta Junior Hockey League final round. The Okotoks Dawgs will host their Awards Banquet on Jan. 19 and raise over $50,000. It will be a night to remember. The Okotoks Dawgs will again have a very successful season and attendance will stay strong. More hybrid vehicles will be built. A byelection will be held in Turner Valley for a vacant town council position as well as a vacant trustee position for the Foothills School Division. The Canadian dollar will remain strong and not drop under the 90 cent mark all year compared to the US dollar. We will all become one year older. • • • • • We at The Wheel wish each of you a very Happy New Year and may all your dreams come true. Friends are important but don’t forget family is God’s gift.

Was 2007 really that bad?

2007 was the year in which global warming finally began to be taken seriously. The climate change deniers were in full retreat, and the realiztion that we face a long and grave crisis was finally dawning on the general public. However, it remains to be seen whether it was the year in which the world agreed on effective measures to deal with the crisis.
The global conference in Bali that was supposed to kick off negotiations for a new treaty to replace the Kyoto accord after 2012 ended ambiguously. The American delegation did not succeed in wrecking it, but it did manage to get all specific targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions removed from the text of the agreement.
The other countries went along with it in order to stop the United States from walking out, on the assumption that next year’s presidential election will produce an administration that is willing to cooperate. Then the hard targets for cuts will get put back in, and United States will sign up to them, and the Indians and the Chinese and the other big developing countries will make a deal that commits them to some cap on emissions in return for much technological and financial help from the developed countries in installing clean energy technologies.
That is the theory, and you can’t blame the other countries for going along with it because the alternative was a rogue America and no agreement. On the other hand, the history is not promising. It was Saint Albert Gore himself, then vice-president, who led the US delegation to the Kyoto talks in 1997 and drove the proposed emissions cuts down from 15 percent to five percent, in the hope of coming up with a deal that Congress would accept.
But Congress never did accept the Kyoto accord, because its paymasters in the US energy, transport and natural resources sectors said not to. Things may have changed a bit now — Congress passed a bill this month that mandates greater fuel economy in vehicles — but on the big issues it is still largely subservient.
George W. Bush will no longer be there in 2009, but even a more climate-friendly president will probably still face a sold-out Congress.
The crisis has finally been acknowledged around the world, but we may not be anywhere near a coordinated global response yet.
In the Asia-Pacific region, the year opened with China’s January test of a satellite-killing missile, which was probably meant mainly as a warning that it will react badly if Taiwan holds a referendum on changing the island’s name from Republic of China to Republic of Taiwan before next year’s election. China’s anger over India’s growing military relationship with the United States was underlined by the restatement in June of its claim to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, but the Indian parliament’s refusal to ratify the nuclear part of the US-Indian deal in November suggested that the drift towards an Asia-Pacific cold war is not yet unstoppable.
The fall of Shinzo Abe’s government in Japan in September, after less than a year in office, sparked speculation that the Liberal Democratic Party’s half-century monopoly on power may be staggering to its end. Given the harshly nationalistic style of the faction that has controlled the LDP since the turn of the century, this would come as a considerable relief to the country’s Asian neighbours — and also to many Japanese.
In the Koreas, an agreement on dismantling North Korea’s nuclear weapons program led, in October, to the first serious discussions about an actual peace treaty to replace the 54-year-old armistice that ended the Korean War.
Farther west, the war in Afghanistan intensified in 2007, with foreign forces heavily engaged all across the south of the country against Pashtun rebels fighting under the Taliban banner. Nevertheless, the country’s export trade is thriving, with Afghan heroin now accounting for 93 percent of global production. And Turkmenistan’s ruler for the past 21 years, Saparmurat Niyazov, was succeeded on his death by his former dentist, Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov.
In the Middle East, President Bush’s troop “surge” in Iraq bought him an extra two years and ensured that he would be able to drop the mess in the lap of his successor, but it is still an unwinnable war for the United States. Some militias have switched sides for the moment for tactical reasons, but a poll conducted by ABC News, the BBC and Japan’s NTV in August found that 57 percent of Iraqis believe that attacks on US forces are acceptable. On the assumption that most Kurds (20 percent of the population) are pro-American, the implication is that around three-quarters of Arab Iraqis have no problem with blowing up Americans.
The great and frightening imponderable of the year was not the fate of Iraq, but the question of whether the United States would also attack Iran. Both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney repeatedly accused Iran of working on nuclear weapons (predicting World War III if it were not stopped), and warned that “all options are on the table” including a US attack. In early December, however, the 16 US intelligence agencies produced a new National Intelligence Estimate which asserted that Iran has not been working on nuclear weapons for the past four years. Mr Bush grumpily insisted that Iran was still a threat because it might do so, but the likelihood that he could actually launch another war before leaving office dropped dramatically.
Matters were much less military in Europe, where the great non-surprise of the year was the revelation this month that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who cannot run again in next year’s presidential election, will re-emerge as Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. To be fair, that is just the way most Russian voters would have wanted it: as they credit Putin for restoring both Russia’s prosperity and its prestige — and it’s every bit as legal as Bill Clinton’s wife running for the presidency in the United States.
Tony Blair finally relinquished the prime ministership in Britain in June to take up a lucrative career on the lecture circuit and a largely symbolic post as prominent-person-in-charge-of-doing-something-for-the-Palestinians, while his successor Gordon Brown struggled to get the hang of being prime minister after 10 years in the number two job.
Nicolas Sarkozy won the French presidency in May, promising to reanimate the French economy with sweeping free-market reforms, but his wife promptly divorced him, and he soon ran into predictable resistance from the beneficiaries of the existing system in the form of nationwide strikes.
You have to look hard to find encouraging news from Africa. Ivory Coast has reunited, at least for the moment, after five years of civil war and division. The civil war in the Congo is still mostly over, although there was a flare-up in the north-east in September. Nigeria had a peaceful transfer of power from one elected president to another, for the first time in its history — although only after the outgoing president was defeated in his attempt to change the constitution and run for a third term. But the victor and new president of Nigeria, Umaru Yar’Adua, won by an absurd four-to-one majority in an election that European Union observers described as “not credible” and the United States called “deeply disturbing.”
That’s the good news. The bad news is that almost all of north-eastern Africa is already at war or rapidly drifting in that direction. The Darfur war in south-western Sudan has spilled over into Chad and the Central African Republic, exacerbating the local conflicts there, and the peace deal that ended the far bigger, decades-long war between southern Sudan and the centre is breaking down. Ethiopia is fighting its own rebel citizens in the north-east and waging a brutal and indiscriminate campaign against civilians and resistance fighters alike in occupied Somalia, while to the north Eritrea, Africa’s Sparta, is gearing up for another war with Ethiopia. These are some of the poorest countries in Africa and perhaps also among the earliest victims of climate change, which may explain why they are also being ravaged by war. Bad things come in threes.
The main story in Latin America all year has been the advance of the left, fuelled in part by Venezuelan oil wealth. Hugo Chavez was the role model in Ecuador, where President Rafael Correa won power in January on a platform of radical reform. Venezuela paid the legal bills when Bolivia nationalized its gas fields and extracted more revenue from the foreign companies that operate them. And Venezuela is now providing so much aid to Cuba, mainly in the form of cheap oil, that the subsidies compare with those that Castro used to get from the Soviet Union. That certainly helped to stabilize Cuba’s transition from Fidel Castro’s one-man rule to the new “collective leadership”, but there was a nationwide sigh of relief when the still ailing Castro finally indicated in December that he did not intend to take power back.
What else? A theatrical competition for rights to the Arctic seabed opened up, with Russian submarines planting flags on the bottom at the North Pole and Canada investing in new armed icebreakers to patrol the Northwest Passage, but the rival claims will really be settled by geological evidence in front of an international court.
Australia dumped its long-serving prime minister, a serial climate change denier, and promptly signed the Kyoto accord. And a British court told the Chagos Islanders that they could finally go home to their home on Diego Garcia, now a key US airbase in the Indian Ocean, only 41 years after Britain illegally expelled them to make room for its American ally.
So it wasn’t all bad, was it?