Then-energy minister Paul Dicks delivered a statement on the decision to the House of Assembly on April 10, 2000. In the statement, Dicks said that "[i]f the production increase had been approved, more oil would have been taken from the field at a lower royalty rate. Over the life of the project, this would have negatively impacted royalties to the province."
The production rate increase had been approved by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board based on an application by the Hibernia operators
One difference between the 2000 decision and recent rejection of the Hibernia South development application is the speed with which government acted. Dicks initiated discussions on the application as soon as the offshore board decision was forwarded to government in early March. No agreement was reached within the 30-day window for approval set under the Atlantic Accord (1985) implementation acts.
In the Hibernia South case, apparently, the provincial government did not initiate contact with the operators nor, apparently, did it raise concerns over incomplete information in the Hibernia application until after the project application was rejected.
The provincial government has still not indicated its goal for Hibernia South. Industry sources suggest the provincial government is seeking to treat the 300 million barrel development as a new project which would involve a new royalty and benefits agreement and a new production platform.
The operators reportedly wanted to bring Hibernia South onstream in 2008 and, as Petro-Canada chief executive Ron Brenneman put it, "step out into the more prolific and better return prospects" while boosting production rates back to 200,000 barrels a day, the rate established in 2004.
In the 2000 disagreement, talks continued beyond the 30 day mark and an agreement was reached that June. Under the new deal - a supplement to the original Hibernia agreement -
"The royalty rate will increase above the current two per cent to three per cent earlier. It will then move to four per cent and five per cent after certain cumulative production levels have been reached. This will result in higher royalties than under the time based system,...This method of dealing with royalty rate increases is consistent with Terra Nova and the generic royalty regime in place for White Rose and future offshore projects."Dicks said the original Hibernia royalty agreement remained in place and would "act as a floor to ensure that if production declines, rate increases will occur in any event."
Another major difference between the 2000 and 2006 disputes involves project pay out or the point at which the provincial royalty rises to 30% per barrel. In 2000, the provincial government secured a revised royalty regime that allowed the project to pay out around 2011, according to some estimates. Dicks noted in his statements that under the original regime, pay out was unlikely.
In 2000, total reserves at Hibernia were estimated at 1.2 billion barrels, including oil already produced. By 2006, total reserves estimates had reached 1.9 billion, the bulk of which would remain to be produced after pay out.
Treating Hibernia South as a new project would likely restrict provincial royalties to a lesser amount for an indefinite period and might delay pay out on the entire project. A new production platform would not be needed to extract Hibernia South, except in response to a political demand.
____________________
NOTE 1: Bond Papers previously reported that the Hibernia South rejection was the first time a provincial government had overturned a fundamental decision by the offshore board. In fact, it appears to be the second, except for the differences noted above.
NOTE 2: In the ministerial statement, Paul Dicks said: "To date, government is not satisfied that the province is being kept whole." Aficionados will recognize "keep whole" or "kept whole" as a favourite phrase of the current Premier.
