The Carousel that Vladimir Built

For some interesting reason, the only people surprised that Russia’s Prime Minister (and former president) Vladimir Putin intends on running for president again are the Russians themselves.

The New York Times newspaper recently took a cute swipe at the news from Moscow, that although the “next presidential election is not until March, the winner is pretty much decided.”

Many people saw the writing on the wall when Mr. Putin handpicked President Dmitri Medvedev to take over the top gig in 2008, and positioned himself as Prime Minister.

Fact remains, Mr. Putin had been very instrumental in  Russia’s post cold war economy, and although there are two sides to the story, much like you will expect for every president, he still staunchly believes that he has the answers to Russia’s - and to a large extent- Europe’s topsy-turvy economic future. One thing we can speculate is that while Vladimir has no intentions of meddling with the European Union politics, his grip on Russia might very well be felt around the world until the year 2024.

Russians had been quick to tell the world that President Dmitri Medvedev is the one in charge, [of course even the wiseguys in the Kremlin didn’t buy that] and that Mr. Putin’s influence starts and ends with his role as Prime Minister. Curious indeed, but maybe the Russians know something that the rest of us may never understand.

Coincidentally, I had a conversation last month about the Nord Stream, the natural gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea that promises to be critical to Europe’s energy future. It will run from Vyborg, Russia to Lubmin near Greifswald, Germany, and will deliver gas to the receiving station in Lubmin, Germany, where it can be transported onwards to Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, the UK, and other countries. I rightly guessed that it was only a matter of time before Mr. Putin takes center stage as the man behind Russia’s energy dominance. Even better, Vladimir will be president. We didn’t see that one coming?

So what?

Well, the implications are many, but I will save you a history lesson. What will be significant however; whoever is U.S. President after 2012 (likely to be President Obama) can expect the Washington-Moscow kum-ba-yah rhythms to change simply because Dmitri and Vladirmir are two very different characters, in every sense of the word.  

Many so-called experts are warning of economic stagnation, political hard lines, and aggressive domestic policies that may not be the ideal platform to keep Russia thriving.  But these are all speculations, - at least that’s what the Russians say.

I love carousels.  Never mind the music, the adornments and the dangling bells, - you wait around long enough, - and you’ll be right back on your horse again.

Case in point, - Russia.

A Sigh of Relief [or Not]

This is either a good propaganda scheme, or an interesting fact finding mission. Either way, American geophysicist M. King Hubert will be itching to read this headline,-“US gas and oil reserves greater than believed.”

Assuming this is true [I have no reason to doubt that it is], it is at best a welcomed short term sigh of relief for society that is incredibly dependent on oil and gas reserves, and production. Short term, because it will be extremely premature to assume we are off the hook yet. As you will recall, in his 1956 paper, Hubbert outlined scenarios and predictions that the US oil production would peak in 1970. 

40 years later, any research to prove Hubbert wrong makes for an interesting headline, but lest we forget, the world population, global demand and other external factors of demand are not “held constant.”

Shale gas is labeled the next frontier and the saving grace for global energy demand, and despite the environmental concerns, it is possible that experts like Hubbert didn’t anticipate the contributions of such formations and deposits. The interesting twist however is that shale gas development is fighting it s own battles with hydraulic fracturing and supposed impacts on water tables [still a heavily debatable argument].

I have never been interested in arguing Peak Oil theory [I still don’t] simply because it’s only logical for the production of any product from finite natural resources to have a peak level. Whether or not there are one or more peaks due to technological advancements, or in the case of oil and gas, enhanced recovery methods and additional reserves, doesn’t change the fact that finite resources will not exist infinitely.

Furthermore, I have no way to knowing OPEC’s unadjusted data for oil and gas reserves; none of us do. All we have is enough information to speculate. The IEA have repeatedly warned of changing global consumption patterns, as a critical driver to any potential energy emergency. There is ample reason to believe that Canada’s oil sands deposits, the Arctic region, and the US Gulf will have enough supplies to save sleepless nights in the US. In much the same way, deposits along West Africa, North Sea and South China Sea might very well help avert any impending disaster, as predicted by Hubbert’s Peak Oil crisis.  So I am optimistic [cautiously so] on many levels.

Just before we start the celebration for “limitless oil supply”, I go back to my favorite reminder, -once upon a time scientist told us the world was flat, and we believed that too.

My point, - global energy demands will continue to tilt the supply curve, especially in a world of drastic unforeseen contingencies like natural disasters and man-made uncertainties.  For that reason alone, we might be well served to stick to judicious use of supply, aggressive research and production strategies, and non-restrictive energy sector regulations [assuming the Peak Oil theory is still on track].

Of course we can do our best to minimize the impact on the demand side of the curve, but be wary of headlines that can slip the US and global society into “cruise control,” instead of committing to additional technologies, environmental initiatives, and other incentives to affect the supply side of the same curve.

Just a thought.

Microsoft: Fighting Back with Windows 8

For the Apple and Macintosh [Mac] faithfuls, Windows and anything non-Mac and non-Apple is garbage. Even worse, Apple-loyalists have never been more convinced of any products flawless value proposition than they are of anything stamped with the famous Apple “bite.” 

Essentially Microsoft can just go away and the world will be a much better place.

Most computer users however, fall in the moderately logical category to computers; - we want something that works, nothing complicated yet reliable, and we don’t care if it is stamped with an Apple [or Watermelon] that glows in the dark. For that reason alone, Microsoft is correct in recognizing that the playing field is still up for grabs, although the Apple-loyalists will swear that a person’s star aligns perfectly with the moon,  and life expectancy increases by 50 years, just by owning a Mac. Sure, maybe Microsoft still hasn't figured out all the flaws in its operating system, and the countless necessary updates are a turnoff for most computer users.

Microsoft is hoping its new Windows 8, supposedly with a tablet-like visual feel, will be the much awaited game changer to its operating system. They might as well run a commercial to say “This isn’t your Granddad’s Windows.” The world has changed a bit since the DOS years, and with a computing world always on the hunt for the latest and greatest [and “sleekiest” designs], optimizing products for touchscreen and other “cool” visual interfaces might be the one way to fight back, and fight hard.

One thing Microsoft may have figured out [correctly] is that computer users want a full computer experience on-the-go. For instance, iPads are nice gadgets until you find out what files from your email you can’t open because of the “C –word”, compatibility. Insiders say Microsoft is veering into a tablet-PC combo that allows it to compete with the hundred different versions of iPads that Apple churns out every nanosecond.

The tricky proposition with technology is that two thirds of a product’s customers have no clue of the core differentiators between product A and B. They hear the educated one-third [often computer “geeks” and the genuinely tech-savvy], and repeat their words like gospel. These early adopters [opinion leaders] are often more concerned with bugs, applications, and operating capacity, than they are with fancy interfaces, cutesy icons and colorful cases.

My point? Visual overhauls are fine [and dandy], but if Microsoft plans on giving Apple’ a run for their money, the software’s development should not lose sight of the critical value proposition embedded in the basics; - a computer that works.

2012 can’t come fast enough. 
We will see if Microsoft’s Windows 8 makes a strong case for its market share, or its launch becomes another step towards a slow death of technological irrelevance, as the Apple-loyalists will want the rest of us to believe.

A Long Road Home

There is no contentious debate in the world, more complex and multifariously polarizing than the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Many presidents have come and gone, and promised and failed to deliver. 

Bilateral institutions have attempted to unravel the issue with deals, negotiations and mandates, yet the tensions get complex still. The only thing that seems to unravel is the fickle trust that both sides develop for each other after every highly publicized meeting.

This is perhaps a case of two sides of a coin with no intentions of budging at any cost. Israeli’s and Israeli supporters will kindly remind you of Hamas’ atrocities and other terrorist networks disguised as sovereignty seeking Palestinians. Furthermore, pro-Israelis will make sure you know that Palestinians want something that is not theirs, and was never theirs in the first place.

But [as is to be expected] the Palestinian point of view is differs starkly. An estimated 5 million Arabs living in Palestine today probably have no intentions of moving away, and they have no qualms reminding the world of Israel’s aggression, and disregard for international resolutions.

I am an objective observer who seeks peace for the region and security for both sides, and I am naïve enough to believe any deal that resembles long-term solution can’t be mutually exclusive.

Once upon a time the United States took the role of the neutral arbiter in this predicament, with the UN as its primary cheerleader. Presidents came and went, hopes were lifted and dashed, - all with no real solutions in sight.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is pushing ahead in his quest for full United Nations membership. It’s a tricky proposition, but he acknowledges that this has become a high stakes chess game and the only way to stay relevant in the conversation is to put himself on the agenda.

It will be the U.N. Security Council’s call, and at least force their hand for pressure Israel to agree to the 2 state solution and return to the 1967 borders. According to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinians want a seat at the United Nations, and “don't want anything more." That is perhaps analogous to saying “I want a seat at the dinner table, I don’t care about the food.”

At least that is what any Israeli will tell you that Abbas’s proposition makes an already complicated scenario a shade murkier. The fact that Hamas continues to call the shots in Gaza, and is stanchly unwilling to acknowledge Israel makes it a tall order to question the fine prints of such an invitation.  

Let’s be clear, any approval in the U.N. General Assembly will not lead to an established "state" with defined borders, but at least the Palestinian government gets an upgraded international status which will in turn give them recognition to pursue legal actions against Israel.

What does all this mean? Another layer of complexity to the uber-complicated scenario I mentioned earlier. Pardon my naiveté, - but after all these years, after all the numerous false starts, and dashed hopes, - the objective world starts to wonder if there is a solution after all.

If indeed there is, what does it look like?

Go Green or Go Home

Once upon a time, the hope was the renewable energy will be the new kid on the block, the sure bet the world’s energy future. Solar stocks were on its way to be the rising star on the energy grid, with wind farms and other “greener” technologies not too far behind.

Politics aside, Solyndra’s bust is chilling reminder that green technology is not failure proof, and that the same business rules apply, if not more. The solar panel company at the center of the $5.3 million collapse and the now public drama, was supposed to be the torchbearer on alternative energy front. Somehow operations, management, markets trends and the company’s own value proposition didn’t save its demise. 

This may perhaps a good reason to pause for a moment to rethink strategies for alternative and renewable energy.

From what we know now, Solyndra is not alone in this predicament. New York based SpectraWatt, a solar cell company received a $500,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as part of the stimulus package. Evergreen Solar Inc., indirectly received $5.3 million through a state grant to open a $450 million facility in 2007. Both SpectraWatt and Evergreen Solar went under, and now Solyndra.

For now, politicians and “gotcha journalists” are busy working overtime to investigate how California based Solyndra, despite questions of its ability to stay afloat in 2009, earned the endorsement of the Obama White House to “speed up” a loan decision. Of course it is fair territory for the public to know how $535 million of a stimulus bill ends up in a company supposedly hanging by a thread.  But lest we forget that, regardless of the merit in the allegations and the political he-said she-said wrangling, an underlying economic concern still remain unanswered.

The usual retort? Blame China.

I ask myself a loaded rhetoric question; - can alternative energy really be the game changer the world eagerly awaits its arrival?

That opens the door to a rather intriguing thought; - that the Chinese must probably have a winning algorithm that works, and a market that is already ahead of the curve to sustain demand. Or both. On the flipside, the Chinese companies could very well be failing lefts and center, but of course the fact that no one gets wind of it is enough reason to speculate the viability of the competitor companies in China.

Thanks to globalization, the China factor has come to stay and all companies [not just energy companies] have to find pragmatic alternative strategies to stay competitive and redefine their value propositions to stay ahead.

Once upon a time [just a few years ago], the mantra was “go green or go home”> The logic was in the hope that the fastrack ticket to future prosperity for any company [and country] would be in renewable and alternative energies like solar, wind, nuclear and everything there is.

At least now we know, that you can “go green”, and still go home.

HPV – Vaccination’s Déjà vu

In the interest of full disclosure, until last week’s CNN/Tea Party GOP debate,  I knew almost nothing about the ongoing verbal wrangling resulting from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggestion that parents should have their middle-school-aged daughters vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease linked to cervical cancer. Thanks to Google I learned that the human papillomavirus (HPV) is a common STD, and second leading cause of female cancer mortality worldwide.

Vaccinations didn’t use to be a bone of contention, at least until childhood vaccinations linked to autism rocked the boat and sent parents into panic mode [understandably so I should add]. given the choice however, most parents will opt for  alternative preventive solutions with a much shorter string of side effects. 
I can only imagine that this is why the HPV quagmire is having a hard time convincing most people that the vaccine is a surefire approach to prevent the deadly cancer.

According to people who have followed this story closely [mostly teachers and parents in Texas] Governor Rick Perry’s 2007 executive order required Texas schoolgirls to receive vaccinations against HPV. His opponents were convinced that Governor Perry was working an agenda to benefit his campaign donors, and contrary to what he says, he is joined at the hip with the drug manufacturer Merck & Co. 

For the record, Texas is not alone in this;- 19 other state legislatures are pushing to mandate HPV shots for schools, and the CDC doesn’t think it is too bad an idea.

I spoke to a teacher last night on this issue whose concern was triggered by the age of girls at the center of this debate. How early is too early to engage kids in preventive measures [with all the associated good intentions] from a vaccine that steer them to sexual activity? 
That is perhaps the sticking point of the conversation many parents are having a hard time digesting.

Regarding the hidden agenda tagline, - if you look hard enough in to any story you can always find someone connected to someone who is connected to someone at the center of the issue, hence it might be a bit ill-advised to advocate the death of a message simply because of the alleged associations of the messenger.   

The absence of real education leaves the door open for paranoia interpretations, and that’s perhaps where the CDC is missing a critical point. If you told me that there are over hundred types of HPV and these vaccines only prevents a couple; but that 68 people have died and 18,727 people have had very negative side effects from them, that alone would scare the be-jee-bees out of me.

My point? When it comes to vaccinations, many parents vividly remember Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 medical research that sparked international concern [and outrage] over the connections between childhood vaccines and autism. We all know what happened and that will be the crux of the uphill battle the CDC faces to convince the American public that both Cervarix and Gardasi are indeed “very safe” and will indeed “prevent cervical cancer in women.” 
Who am I to question CDC scientists? Lest we forget, once upon a time scientist assured us that the world was flat. Pardon the sarcasm.

On the flip-side, I hope that same memory also serves the fact that vaccines are the reasons we are not dying from polio, yellow fever, and small pox in 2011. Maybe the real solution will be giving parents an honest choice by providing all the necessary information, without the political bias, the lobbying and the smokescreens.

Just a thought.

The post-Macondo Dilemmas

As is to be expected, the aftermath of any disaster sends the rest of us into panic mode. That is human nature. The fact that hindsight is 20/20 is ample reason for anyone to rethink their next steps before making a second move. Not a bad idea either. 

But how long is too long for the supposed waiting game?

Ask the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), the guys in charge of keeping business afloat in the Gulf of Mexico, and they will give you very good reasons why the lessons learned makes the wait worthwhile. Lest we forget, our collective hearts go to the families of the eleven people who lost their lives from the rig explosion.

Of course there is a school of thought who supports a “once bitten, twice shy” idea, and no one insinuates that it is a bad idea in itself. The flipside of the argument, however, is the energy and associated oilfield service companies waiting in the wings to make business decisions. From the little I know [which isn’t much] jobs and viability of investment opportunities will hinge on whether BOEMRE leans one way or another.

The finger pointing between BP, Transocean and Halliburton for their roles in Gulf of Mexico oil spill dates back to April 2010 when the tragedy first made national and international headlines. With today’s’ report from the BOEMRE, all three companies "violated a number of federal offshore safety regulations,” and it’s perhaps fair to split the blame three ways. Point noted.

What’s my argument then?

Well, there is a lingering concern however that sooner or later we will look back [thanks to the same hindsight] to wish the country had not dragged its feet with moratoriums and permits in the Gulf of Mexico. Most companies will be quick to let you know that the energy supply chain is a little more complex than one can fathom; and although no one seeks to downplay recommendations for improving drilling safety, it shouldn’t be surprising to discover how much of a stifling incentive this disaster may have been to business productivity.

In case you were wondering, the BOEMRE report points out that the disaster was "the result of poor risk management, last minute changes to plans, failure to observe and respond to critical indicators, inadequate well control response, and insufficient emergency bridge response training by companies and individuals responsible for the drilling." In short, there is enough blame to go around the table. The companies involved have all made [or still making] pragmatic changes to their strategies and quality assurance programs to avoid a repeat of Macondo, but none have any intentions of going out of business because of the 2010 tragedy. Therein lays the dilemma for BOEMRE.

What is a government to do when it on one hands itches to give green lights and eliminate restrictions for economic reasons, but on the other hand, after oil and gallons of chemical dispersant spilled into the coastal waters, the public retains a legitimate argument to slow the process for as long as it take to ensure every detail is assesses analyzed and addressed?

Business will get back to normal, but my best guess is that it will continue be slow [very slow] starting with the pending governments lease sales.  Either way, like the truism points out, we can’t have our cake and eat it too; - somewhere down the line we ought to make a choice.

Just a thought.

Iran’s Bushehr Gamble

What happened to the political tug-of-war surrounding Iran’s nuclear reactor and uranium enrichment program? After all the suspicion and uneasiness about Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad getting a nuclear bargaining chip, the country started running its Russian-built Bushehr nuclear reactor this week.

The tug-of-war is far from over. The Iranian argument was that the facility would be for peaceful energy producing purposes, a claim many questioned from the outset. Perhaps it had something to do with the messenger, the fact that Ahmadinejad hasn’t been the most cooperative player in the nuclear sandbox, at least from his own political rhetoric.

After a bevy of sanctions, the country hopes this nuclear program will add some more cushion to their future energy stockpile. What we know for now [according to Iran] is that the reactors will be generating of 60 megawatts of electricity for the national grid, rising to 400 MW next week. The full capacity, however, is 1000 MW. Sounds peaceful enough, - and no pun intended.

BUT will Iran follow this act with an open invitation to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to at least prove their side of the story? Only then, the rest of the world can get off the pins and needles it has stuck on for many years unsure of what Ahmadinejad’s true intent with the nuclear reactors could be.

Over Iran’s disputed nuclear program, the country has no intent on cooperating with the United Nations’ atomic watchdog, at least all indications point to the country holding fast to its ideology and principles. Let’s not forget the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency has been fighting a seemingly lost battle since 2003, so perhaps the Bushehr plant is the gamble to signal Iran’s unwavering position.

I will leave the foreign policy “experts” to debate the fine prints, but from where I sit, Mahmood Ahmadinejad seems to be gambling every asset to save his political future; and only time will tell if it pays off.

Just a thought.

Got Jobs?

Being a President [of any country] ought to be the toughest job on the planet; take all the blame for all the bad, and get no credit for any of the good. The top job in the United States can be especially brutal. 
But just before I start shedding tears for presidents, I like to remind myself of the perks of the gig that makes someone want to be president in the first place.

Fast-forward to 2011. Unemployment rates are on the uptick and Americans are staring into President Barack Obama’s face with a simple question; - got jobs? No one knows the answer to this “trick question” but tonight the man in charge gets the chance to reassure an unnerved country that at least he has a plan.

In a speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama takes center stage to unveil some pragmatic strategies that he is convinced will push the country’s employment ratios in the right direction, create a platform for private sector enterprise and present a package including boatloads of tax reliefs and infrastructure spending.

I know what you’re itching to ask me, - what’s different about this plan from all the other plans? Good question. Where is the famous psychic Ms Cleo when you need trustworthy answers?

According to “reliable sources”, the American Jobs Act including a complete financing strategy will be submitted to Congress and hopefully become the magic pill that is designed to jumpstart a sluggish economy.

Of course there are many people, mostly his opponents, who swear President Obama’s ideas are just a bunch of political rhetoric and bad options [no surprise there]. But you may understand also that with unemployment perching comfortably at 9.1%, Americans will opt for a bad-option over a no-option, and take their chances the rest of the way.

Will I listen to the President’s speech tonight? Of course I will, there is no where Ill rather be. Packers vs. Saints and Americas Got Talent TV show can both wait; especially when someone supposedly has a surefire plan to avert another economic downturn. Keyword here is “supposedly.”

Let’s face it, - President Obama is far from a miracle worker, and so there are no guarantees that injecting $300 billion [or $400 billion] overnight will entice employers to open their doors and purses. Essentially, this will be another stimulus and perhaps the only game changer the President possesses. If it works, he buys enough credence to win his 2012 re-election. If it doesn’t, Jesus of Nazareth would have had an easier time with the Pharisees, than Obama will have with his opposition.

Does a part of me think President Obama is working the system to boost his approval ratings? Of course. Does the other part of me think the President is genuinely looking for answers to save this ship? Certainly. For these two reasons alone, I will be listening to every word.

Ask almost Americans, the US economy is almost in the dumps, economic growth and other indicators are sitting in limbo, and unemployment figures continues to send goose bumps every month. I have a feeling that many people will also be watching the President tonight with only one simple question in mind, - Got Jobs?

And can you blame them?