Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Lundin Oil (LOILY, LOILB Sweden) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tomas who wrote (2369)	5/8/2001 8:45:01 AM
From: Tomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2742

Sudan: Talisman enemies guilty of hypocrisy Calgary Sun, May 8 By PAUL JACKSON, associate editor of the Sun The rabble that descended upon Jim Buckee's annual meeting a week ago said all there really is to say of the case against Talisman Energy Inc.'s operations in Sudan. Inside the meeting, the Talisman president spoke calmly and articulately about the growing success of our country's largest independent oil and gas company. It's a success every fair-minded man and woman should applaud. Outside, some 200 protesters beat drums, waved crosses and raised placards, denouncing this entrepreneurial company. It was an unruly demonstration that disgraced every one of the ragtag individuals involved. The two sides in this issue couldn't be more different. One is conservative, well-behaved, industrious and business-like. A credit to our community. The other side is intolerant, raucous and hysterical -- and apparently believes in mob rule rather than rule of law. It demeans, rather than enhances, our city. The situation in a nutshell: Talisman is part-owner of an oil project in the East African nation, together with the Sudanese, Chinese and Malaysian state oil corporations. It was quite a coup for this fiercely free enterprise company to mesh itself with these socialist giants. Some so-called 'human-rights' organizations, a bunch of zany churches and the usual flotsam-and-jetsam of the Lib-Left contend Talisman is indirectly helping the Sudanese government -- and let's stress the word "government" to fight rebels in the southern part of the nation. Again let's stress a word, "rebels." The Sudanese government has actually been in an 18-year-long civil war against tribes who want to carve up the country and Talisman's opponents charge the royalties it gets from the Canadian company is helping it fund that military action. Well, so what? Talisman's opponents also claim the oil activity has caused forcible widespread population displacement -- a claim the company has neatly nixed by showing satellite images of its oil concession area across a 35-year path. When Lloyd Axworthy was foreign affairs minister, he threatened to punish Talisman by invoking sections of the Special Economic Measures Act against it. Our current foreign affairs minister, John Manley, hasn't gone that far. Manley is simply very dubious about Talisman's involvement. Talisman insists its presence in Sudan is an influence for the better of the Islamic government, and points out it has contributed heavily to educational and medical projects in the country. It's basically been an outstanding corporate citizen. Axworthy, who, as foreign affairs minister virtually went on a campaign of hatred against the U.S., some left-wing Liberal MPs and Alexa McDonough's New Democrats feel that somehow isolating Sudan will bring about democratic reforms. Strangely, that's the exact opposite feeling they hold about the brutal dictatorship of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Castro has ruled Cuba with an iron fist for more than four decades. Free speech is banned. All newspapers, radio and television stations are controlled by the government. Hundreds of thousands have toiled in labour camps. Anyone who demands democratic rights is jailed. The economy is nationalized. Churches have been ransacked, believers brutalized. Socialized agriculture has been such a flop that food is rationed. Rebels are shot. Yet, the likes of Axworthy laugh at the U.S. trade embargo aimed at toppling the communist regime. In this case, the involvement of foreign companies is hailed as having a positive and moderating influence on the dictator. Well, he hasn't shown any change of heart since taking over power in 1959, so that's obviously a specious argument. At Talisman's annual meeting, Buckee was able to reveal that Talisman's profit for the quarter ended March 31 increased to $346 million from $206 million a year earlier. Its cash flow is set to hit $3 billion this year. It's well on the way to producing a staggering 500,000 barrels of oil a day. We should all be lauding this company, not chastising it. Why a small but highly vocal set is trying to undermine Talisman can be summed up this way: Hypocrisy, selective morality and situational ethics. Basically, misleading behaviour. But for them, it's likely a fun campaign. Paul Jackson can be reached at paul.jackson@cal.sunpub.com canoe.ca

To: Tomas who wrote (2369)	6/7/2001 9:56:04 PM
From: Tomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2742

Our good friends in Riyadh The Globe & Mail, June 7 By MARCUS GEE In a sun-baked Muslim nation, a brutal regime holds sway. Women are forbidden from going outdoors unless clothed head to foot in a black cloak and prohibited from riding on a bus unless accompanied by a male relative. Religious minorities are stigmatized and persecuted. Convicted criminals face flogging, stoning, mutilation or beheading. No one can vote, belong to a political party or join a labour union. Afghanistan under the Taliban? No, Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud. In many ways, the royal dynasty that rules Saudi Arabia is as autocratic and feudal as the religious fundamentalists who rule Afghanistan. Just as in Afghanistan, religious police roam the streets, arresting those who violate the dress code or break rules against fraternization of the sexes. Just as in Afghanistan, the government restricts freedom of the press, speech and association. And just as in Afghanistan, the Islamic courts routinely order barbaric punishments. Last year, a man's eye was surgically removed as punishment for putting out another man's eye. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, and Afghanistan a theocratic dictatorship, but the result is the same: The regime's rule is law. Crown Prince Abdullah (the kingdom's effective ruler since his brother, King Fahd, suffered a stroke in 1995) answers to no one except his royal kin and a purely advisory Consultative Council. The country's only constitution is the Koran, the holy book of Islam, so there is no such thing as freedom of religion or the separation of religion and state. When a group of 16 Filipino guest workers held a Christian prayer service last year, they were thrown into jail. Despite these obvious similarities, the outside world treats the Taliban and the House of Saud as if they were different species. While the Taliban is shunned, sanctioned and condemned around the world, the Saudi royals are welcomed with red carpets and warm handshakes. While the Taliban is considered a bunch of raving "fundamentalists," the Saudis are merely "conservative" -- stout allies of the West in the fight against religious extremism. Consider how differently Canada has treated these two regimes. Ottawa has delivered many tongue-lashings to the Taliban; yet, on Saudi misdeeds, it has been all but silent. In fact, until last week, it was getting ready to welcome Prince Abdullah to Ottawa, where he was to open a grand new Saudi embassy on Sussex Drive, right near the Prime Minister's house. When the trip was called off, it wasn't because Canada had decided that it would be wrong to embrace a feudal despot; it was because he was mad at us. As his Interior Minister confirmed yesterday, Prince Abdullah was upset over Canadian reports that his government was mistreating a Canadian, William Sampson, who is in a Saudi jail on charges related to a bombing in Riyadh. (Another Canadian held on other bomb charges has been released, the Saudis said yesterday.) The Crown Prince's affront was quite understandable. The poor man just isn't used to criticism from his Western friends. After all, he has oil, while Afghanistan has only opium. When they look at Saudi Arabia, Western governments see not just a trading partner and oil supplier, but a pillar of stability in the troubled Middle East. But pillars are made of sand, and the stability of dictatorships is often illusory. One day, the House of Saud will fall, just as the Shah of Iran did. Canada may live to regret its dalliance with this barbarous regime. mgee@globeandmail.ca globeandmail.com

To: Tomas who wrote (2369)	7/1/2001 11:36:02 PM
From: Douglas V. Fant	Respond to of 2742

(OT) Tomas, The difference I believe, is that Saudi Arabians hold no slaves nor engage in mass murder as does the armies and militias of the GOS (Now there may be some indentured servants from the Philippines and Indonesia). The GOS actively engages in terrorism- just implicated this week in the effort to bomb the US Embassy in India. Saudi Arabia commits no acts of terrorism. And yes King Fahd and Saudi Arabia joined with President Reagan and the US in a plan in 1983 to bring down the USSR- which worked. For that America owes Saudi Arabia a debt of gratitude. As for the Christian Right being hypocritical for not condemning the Saudi Government- not that I'm their spokesperson, but condemn the Saudis for what? Yes Saudi Arabia practices a monotheistic culture that officially excludes Christianity. But Christians (except if you're foolish enough to put "LDS" or "Mormon" as your religion on your passport- The origin of that restriction comes from a hilarious oilfield story which I'll send you offline if you' like) move freely in Saudi Arabia- I've been there. And Christian missionaries I believe still try to go into Saudi Arabia....