The topic today is about conflict between First Nations and Taseko Mining Ltd.

vs.

First Nations chiefs have come together and made the decision announcing that a large area of Chilcotin will be recognized as a Tribal park. This is obviously an attempt to halt Taseko from opening a prosperity mine that could decimate entire ecosystems around the area. 

However, the description of what a “Tribal park” is vague and whether First Nations has the authority to declare such a large landmass as a protected area is still under question.  Furthermore, although granted 1,750 square kilometres of land west of Williams Lake, it doesn’t encompass the property of Taseko Mining Ltd. 

This is a clear threat to Taseko mining because if government rectifies the decision, then there will be nothing Taseko can do. Therefore, the only way out is to revise their plan so that it creates minimal damage and pollution. This has already been attempted but results still show that pollution will still be done to the lake, which in the long run will disrupt food chains and ecosystems.

The ethical debate arises whether or not a 1.1 billion dollar project for resources is a good enough reason to destroy cultural heritage and the local environment. Mining is a large scale operation that contributes to major world problems such as deforestation, causing global warming and animals to lose their natural habitats. However at the same time, the project will certainly boost the country’s GDP and economic activity.

Taseko’s best chance is with the law, as First Nations seemed to have declared land outside of their boundaries. Therefore, if the supreme court recognizes their property rights, there is a large chance that Taseko can continue their project. Taseko definitely does no want to publicize this as I am sure many of the local residents in Vancouver will disagree with such an operation. Negative publicity will only lower their chances with justifying it through the legal system

Personally, I believe that environmental preservation is an extremely important aspect of governing and because so, would disagree with Taseko’s mining project. As a student of UBC, where the university itself is built on Musqueam land, I strongly believe that the heritage of the aboriginals should be respected by everyone.  Therefore, I would urge Taseko Mining to find another location.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Unilateral+park+declared+Tsilhqot+includes+Prosperity+mine/10192766/story.html

I bet you never even knew the computer technology giant HP was short for Hewlett-Packard!

Originally founded in 1939 by Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard, HP has announced that the company will split into two businesses, separating its computer and printer business.

However, both divisions will still be under the “HP” brand. Such a decision is compelling because you’d expect if a company would split, it would be into two different companies under a different name and will run its own course. Therefore, it is interesting to explore why HP has made the choice to split if there weren’t many explicit private benefits to offer.

CEO Meg Whitman claims that splitting will give them the “flexibility they need to adapt quickly to market and customer dynamics”. This suggests that HP was suffering from diseconomies of scale, which are problems that hinders efficiency after a company has grown too large. In this case, I believe that there were troubles with communication between the company hierarchy as both the computer and printer business had to act as one, causing decision making to be slower and not for the best of both divisions.  

With the split, both companies are now smaller in size and the managerial burden is lessened. This means that both companies can make faster and correct decisions because there isn’t a large hierarchy and also because they are more focused on their one market, which as Meg Whitman has said, should allow HP(s) to adapt quickly.

Both HPs can now adopt a focus differentiation strategy to target specific segments more effectively.

Another benefit that HP can have is that by splitting, they are now effectively two separate companies and can be listed as such. This means that if both goes public, their IPOs may arguably gain more financial capital than if they were one company.

There are many complications with large company restructures such as this one. A major disadvantage to all stakeholders are that many jobs are lost in this process. This reduces the company size, creates unemployment and the government gets less tax revenue, effectively lowering economic activity.

Another problem is that both HP is smaller in size but also increasing in costs. Both companies still have to play for administrative and marketing costs that it previously had to only pay as one company, which may have justified letting employees go to make up for the increased cost. The companies now are also smaller in size, which may lose economies of scale for purchasing components.

Only the future will tell whether this decision would lead to a new era for HP computers and HP printers or cause its downfall.

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-news/press-release.html?id=1809455#.VFmCr_ldX0Q

http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2014/10/07/hps-split-a-sound-strategy-or-a-rabbit-pulled-out-of-a-hat/