The New Hebron-Muskrat Falls Connection #nlpoli

Natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy is right:

“There's obviously an obligation…on any member in this house when presenting a petition to ensure that accuracy, to ensure that statements made to this house are ones that can be relied on ... This is a very serious matter."

The obligation for accuracy doesn’t just apply to petitions.  It applies to everything a member of the legislature says.

And if the member of the House is also a cabinet minister or the Premier, then the obligation for accuracy goes up another few notches.

NAFTA and Hebron #nlpoli

ExxonMobil and Murphy Oil have won a North American Free Trade Agreement appeal of a 2004 offshore board regulation that sets the amount of research and development money oil companies operating offshore must make in the province.

They filed the appeal in 2007

That means the oil companies will have to pay the much lower fixed amount for research and development accepted by the provincial government in the Hebron final agreement.

-srbp-

Hebron Development Approved #nlpoli #cdnpoli

From the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board:

The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) announced today that the Hebron Development Application is approved.

At its April 27, 2012 meeting, the Board approved the Hebron Benefits Plan and Development Plan subject to the conditions outlined in Decision Report 2012.01. In its deliberation with respect to these plans the Board considered advice provided in the Benefits Plan and Development Plan staff analysis as well as recommendations resulting from the Report of the Hebron Public Review Commissioner.

Under the Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts, Fundamental Decisions of the Board must be ratified by both governments before they can be implemented. The Board’s Approval of the Hebron Development Plan was a Fundamental Decision. The approval of the Development Plan by both governments now enables ExxonMobil Canada Properties Limited to proceed with development of the Hebron Field, which is estimated to contain 707 million barrels of oil.

-srbp-

Hebron review complete #nlpoli

The review panel appointed by the offshore regulatory authority to review the Hebron development issued its report on Tuesday with a set of 64 recommendations attached.

Among them (bolding added):

• Helicopter safety should be the top priority of the C-NLOBP. Guided by the rulings of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, Transport Canada, the Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency, the C-NLOPB Chief Safety Officer must ensure that the Category A helicopters operating in the NL offshore comply with existing and revised regulations.
• The derrick equipment set module should be constructed in the province. This is a $100 million project that can add considerably to the local benefits from the project. The government has agreed that the Proponent may build the utilities and process module (UPM), which constitutes two thirds of the topsides tonnage, outside the province. The Proponent should therefore make every effort to assure a facility is found to build the derrick equipment set locally and that local suppliers are trained and exposed to the UPM  requirements so that they have the skills for ongoing servicing and maintenance.
• The Benefits Plan for Hebron needs a specific schedule of types and numbers of skilled labour required for construction. The Hebron Diversity Plan needs to set more aggressive targets over and above existing percentages already in the general workforce. Training the workforce, growing the apprenticeship program and reaching new levels of diversification for our province should be attainable outcomes of the Hebron Project.
• Procurement information from the Hebron Proponents needs to be fully disclosed and continually updated. The prime contractors’ tender calling processes and the Proponents’ need for skilled labour should be more clearly articulated to the industry, labour, and government.  Benefits monitoring, labour preparedness and industry growth largely depend on lead time, planning and accurate information.
• First consideration and fair market pricing should be specifically defined. Evidence before the Commission and in material associated with prior commissions and panels shows multiple interpretations of these terms. The proponent and the industry have very divergent  interpretations. The Accord Acts and the C-NLOPB Benefits Plan Guidelines and associated legal rulings have been carefully analyzed by the Commission. The C-NLOPB should revisit the history of the evolution of the interpretations and provide new guidance.
• Model testing for new design characteristics of the proposed Hebron GBS needs to be completed prior to final sanction and rationalized against the same ocean weather parameters as installations currently in operation. The Grand Bank and the Continental shelf are subject to extreme conditions for waves, wind and ice. While advances in knowledge and engineering are important and new variables might be acceptably applied, historical evidence of successful and safe structures operating in extreme weather conditions provide an important standard for comparison.
• Produced Water processing for the Hebron Project must conform to current international regulations to mitigate environmental risks. Produced Water associated with extracting and processing heavy oil, the type found in the Hebron project, is both greater in volume and impurities than the produced water associated with the sweet crude of other NL offshore projects.
• The environmental questions surrounding sea bird mortality on the NL offshore should be the subject of a publicly transparent process leading to the undertaking of necessary research amongst the Canadian Wildlife Service, industry partners and the wider seabird research community. A review of the previous intervention by environmentalists has revealed that the same outstanding questions remain unanswered after twenty years of public
  hearings.
• The Socio-Economic Impact Statement and Sustainability Report needs to be upgraded in content and upgraded in importance within the Development Plan Guidelines. There is a requirement for greater socio-economic research. Two very important issues, diversity and skills training, are important within the short- and medium-term labour shortage, but also must be considered in terms of long-term sustainability. The C-NLOPB should have dedicated socioeconomic expertise. When viewed in terms of cumulative effects, including those stemming from prosperity and population increase, this project and all those preceding it significantly impact communities in the eastern and Avalon regions of the province.
• Research and Development/Education and Training Fund guidelines need to be more flexible to permit the approval of projects pertaining to the socioeconomic impacts of the project and considerations of sustainable development. At present, the guidelines are too influenced by pure or applied research that fails to recognize the research needed on socio-economic matters.
•  The C-NLOPB Benefits Plan Guidelines need to be rewritten to be more specific, including templates to outline the precise types and formats of benefits information that must be provided by Proponents. In reviewing the previous three oil and gas developments, the Commission observed significant inconsistencies in presented material which made evaluation of benefits very difficult. This will provide more measurable objectives for monitoring by the C-NLOPB and, and, in the long term, allow for better comparisons between projects.

- srbp -

Hebron, the Lower Churchill and Local Benefits #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Apparently, this whole Hebron work thing is much ado about nothing.

Premier Kathy Dunderdale spent some time Monday afternoon chatting with On the Go’s Ted Blades about a recent decision by Kiewit to take a pass bidding on a second topsides module for the Hebron project.

Labour was tight. The company was having trouble delivering on time and on budget.
 
At one point, the Premier said there would be more work.  The size of the topsides has apparently gone from the original estimate of 11,000 tons to 18,000 tons.

So, sez the Premier, there’ll be 18,000 tons of work.

You know, that’s something that always puzzled humble e-scribblers.  When people say there’s tons of work, now you know what they mean.  Don’t look for the number of people on the job.  Forget the number of hours of labour.

Work now is measured in tons.

You cannot make this stuff up.

You wouldn’t.

You’d be afraid to make something like that up because people would never believe that the Premier of the province could say such a thing.

But she did.

Dunderdale also tried to claim that the crowd what has been running the place since 2003 were the first ones to copper-fasten the amount of work to be done locally on an offshore project.  Others, she said, had settled for “best efforts.” 

Kathy didn’t say copper-fasten but that’s one of her favourite little bits of meaningless jargon.  Like referring to something as a piece.  Like the Hebron piece.  Or the Kiewit piece.

But anyway, first time for nailing stuff down right to the gram or work that had to be done in the province.

All that would be wonderful, of course.

Splendiferous even, except that it isn’t true.

Construction of the gravity base for the project was always going to be done in Newfoundland.  That’s the cheapest way to do things.  The provincial government didn’t get anything there they didn’t already have going into the meeting.

And then there is a bunch of small time stuff like a tube called the flare boom. Low tech metal bashing, for sure, and again, nothing of any difficulty to get done in someone’s back yard welding shop.

But the topsides modules, utilities and process module and other big stuff covered in Sections 5.5 B, C,and D of the benefits agreement, well those are all subject to conditions. The conditions are secret. They are considered to be commercially sensitive.

They are not copper-fastened at all.

As for the rest of the project, the Hebron final agreement has more than a few give-aways in it. 
The companies got a huge break on financing research and development.  Kathy and her former boss let the companies skate with a pittance of a cash commitment compared to what the offshore regulatory board rules required.

On royalties, Kathy and her old boss gave the companies a break up front as well.  Instead of an escalating percentage of revenue, Kathy and Danny gifted the companies with a flat one percent for as long as it takes to pay off the project development costs.

When Roger Grimes talked about such an idea, back when oil prices were forecast to stay low forever, Danny tore great strips off Grimes’ hide.  As it turned out Danny gave the oil companies a gigantic break when prices were high.  And Kathy Dunderdale totted out in front of the cameras to tell news media it was a way of giving the oil companies some protection against changes in oil prices.

Just think about that, in hindsight.  Back then  - in 2008  - Kathy was running to protect oil companies against the chance oil prices might drop. 

The poor old multinational multi-trillionaire oil companies. 

Too fragile to take the risk.

A couple of years later – in 2010 – oil prices were going to be high forever.  That is the justification for Muskrat Falls. And what about protecting taxpayers from the possibility oil prices might fall?  Out trots Kathy and then Shawn and now Jerome to say there’s no chance of that happening.

And so the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people who own the oil and gas and the water, having given the oil companies a break must now dig ever deeper into their own pockets to ensure their electricity prices are high. Nova Scotians, meanwhile, will get their power for free, except for three months of the year when Muskrat apparently can’t deliver the juice.

Not much of a local benefit in that. Sure,  Tory supporters will tell you all about what Danny got in exchange.  Like equity stakes.

Hang on a second.

Equity.

No small irony that the two big issues in the province are the Lower Churchill on the one hand and Hebron on the other.  Those equity stakes, including the one in Hebron, were always about one thing:  financing the Lower Churchill. Local benefits were entirely secondary. 

Don’t believe it?

Williams broke off Hebron talks in 2006 because he couldn’t get an equity stake.  Nothing else.  After 18 months of public pissing matches and private suck jobs, Williams  got a deal on Hebron. 

But he didn’t pick up any local benefits that weren’t already on the table in 2006.  The so-called super-
royalty won’t add much beyond what the province would have received under the same royalty regime that is delivering in spades on projects like Hibernia and Terra Nova and White Rose.

Equity was the thing.

The first thing.

The most important thing.

So important that Danny even told Arnold about it:

The Premier also discussed the province's Energy Plan objective of using non-renewable resource revenues to fuel a future based on renewable sources of energy.

At times like this, it is always interesting to go back and see what was running around at the time.  This time look at August 2007 and the rather convenient election announcement of a Hebron deal:

6. Shortage of workers means shortage of work.   

In the last round of negotiations, the provincial  government insisted that any work that could be done in Newfoundland and Labrador had to be done there or the companies would pay a penalty. Reportedly, the companies noted that Long Harbour plus the Lower Churchill would outstrip the local labour and engineering pool making it almost impossible to complete Hebron using only local resources.

Cancellation of Hebron last year meant that workers who would have started work on Hebron have already headed west to the higher wages of Alberta. That made the predicted situation worse, not better and therefore will make it harder for the province to stick with that bargaining point. 

Expect that provincial demand to drop off the table or for Hebron to get preference over the Lower Churchill. Otherwise, the cost of the project will be forced up.

Your humble e-scribbler had plenty of people from the local oil and gas community point that out.  The companies talked about labour force shortages and costs, they said. The final Hebron agreement reflected the limited capacity in the local market to do some of the bigger components for Hebron.  The only things the companies had to do here was what they absolutely had no choice but do here.

Not surprisingly, that old demand for guaranteed local benefits or suffer a penalty disappeared.

And equally unsurprisingly, the provincial government’s news release talked up the GBS and the small stuff – “outstanding local benefits” – but only after they played up the equity.

Makes you wonder why Kathy Dunderdale is talking about Kiewit and Marystown like it was some kind of surprise to her.  She’s known about the whole thing from the beginning:  Hebron, the Lower Churchill, jobs, local benefits and the equity.

The equity.

It’s always been about the equity. That’s what ties it all together.

- srbp -

Hebron work leaving the province? #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Via CBC:

Minister Jerome Kennedy said Kiewit won't do some key Hebron work, worth $75 to 100 million, at Marystown and it may have to be done elsewhere.

Apparently Kennedy and Premier Kathy Dunderdale met with Kiewit officials last week.

Interestingly enough, while they were there, the Premier’s communications director tweeted:

Premier @KathyDunderdale & @jerome_kennedy meeting energy experts NYC today. Part of ongoing work to ensure best informed decisions.

No mention of Kiewit in her tweets or anywhere else but a day or so later Kennedy suddenly started tweeting about Muskrat Falls and all the great benefits to come from that project.  Kennedy even mentioned the old chestnut about how many jobs the project would create.

- srbp -

Related:  Hebron benefits less than touted (November 2011)

The politics of quackery #nlpoli

Comedian Dara O’Briain has a routine someone has posted to youtube in which he lambastes advocates of ideas that have no foundation in facts.

He lampoons the irrational.

On that latter one, O’Briain could be lampooning the provincial New Democrats, and specifically Dale Kirby.

Kirby presented a brief to the Hebron development review commission this week.  His comments included a call for a change to offshore work schedules to two weeks on the rig and four weeks of payment for not working.  Kirby also called it “reckless” that the oil companies are allowed to use the S-92 helicopter to fly workers back and forth to the rigs. He said the helicopter was “dangerous”.

In an interview with CBC’s St. John’s Morning Show, Kirby repeated his comments about the offshore shift system. Kirby said that he and his colleagues had seen research that such changes would be marvellously beneficial to workers, to offshore safety and to offshore production. 

Kirby specifically referred to an increase in incidents of unspecified kinds in the third week of a three week work rotation.  He also claimed that a shorter work shift would attract more women to the jobs.

You can read Kirby’s presentation to the Hebron review hearings. Note that he makes no reference at all to any independent evidence to support his claims. He merely talks about the changes in North Sea oil industry rotation schedules.

When pressed by Morning Show host Anthony Germain on the issue, Kirby didn’t cite any specific examples of anything.  He shifted to a claim that somehow “we” owed it to workers.

Germain persisted with another specific reference to the research Kirby supposedly had.

With Germain having now given him three opportunities to give something concrete, Kirby then got to the truth:  this is an area where someone needs to do research. 

That’s why Kirby didn’t refer to any concrete evidence.  There isn ‘t any.  All Kirby did this past week was push a political line that is devoid of any intellectual or other integrity.  It’s just a pile of ideologically driven garbage.

It’s quackery.

Rather than hear from credible witnesses, the Hebron review commission wound up hearing from a witchdoctor, homeopath, horseshit pedlar, to borrow a phrase from O’Briain.

Kirby’s attack on the S-92 is basically the same. It’s another round of political ghoulism. The helicopter has been in use around the globe.  There has been one local tragedy and other incidents of one type of seriousness or the other.  There’s plenty of evidence around to allow one to compare incidents globally with this aircraft with those locally. 

You can the S-92 with other types of helicopters.  You can even collect the information to compare the period from initial use to the same point in its flight history for other types of helicopters.

Kirby didn’t do any of that.

Dale Kirby, education professor at the local university, with absolutely no experience in aviation, offshore safety or anything else offered his entirely unsubstantiated opinion about things he – quite obviously knows nothing about.

Horseshit pedlar indeed.

Kirby didn’t do that because his presentation had no need of facts, evidence or anything that could be mistaken for substance. 

As for those other words Kirby tossed around, the wannabe provincial New Democrat leader couldn’t have given a better example of just how reckless, feckless and dangerous some politicians can be. 

Kirby’s approach to politics is nothing more substantive than a left-wing version of the average American Tea Bagger.  It thrives on misinformation.  It serves only to mislead. it is irrational.

And we can only expect more of it from the NDP over the next four years.

- srbp -

Hebron benefits less than touted #nlpoli

The companies developing the Hebron oil field offshore Newfoundland and Labrador won’t be doing as much of the construction work in the province as some people might have believed.

According to the Telegram, Kiewit’s yard ay Marystown “is being looked at” to build the drilling support module, the accommodation module is supposed to go to Bull Arm, but a third module that could be built here is looking doubtful.

And as the news starts to mount that maybe the local benefits from Hebron are a lot less than some people believed, you should remember the golden words as they slipped so effortlessly from Hisself’s golden tongue:

… this agreement reflects our resolute determination to maximize the benefits that Newfoundland and Labrador receives from the development of all our resources.

Surely Hisself would not have said it were it not so.

But as it turns out he did and it wasn’t.

And what of Hisself’s former shield maiden in the fight to maximise benefits?  What did she say of the August agreement?

Kathy Dunderdale talked of unprecedented local industrial commitments and “ maximizing industrial benefits.” 

Surely she would not have said it, were it not so.

But it turns out she did and it wasn’t.

They both talked about the “co-venturers”, a wonderful bit of spin-speak about the companies who would develop the project and decide where the work would go.

One of those “co-venturers” is – of course – the provincial government’s own energy company.  that’s what the Hebron racket was really all about, as it turns out.

People should take another look at the Hebron agreement.  Well, at least the limited bits that have been made public. They should check the bits with the little stars by them in the news release issued by one of the co-venturers.

Then look again at what one of the co-venturers told us about maximising benefits and ‘unprecedented local commitments.

And then see if there’s a sale on salt down at Dominion because The Lord Hisself knows you’ll be taking every one of those rosy promises with as much Sifto as you can choke down.

There is the public interest and there is the interest of the oil companies.

The Hebron development agreement signed in 2008 turns out to be a very good example of what happens when the political party elected to protect the public interest deliberately and consciously places itself in a conflict of interest with its desire to run an oil company.

One of the interests will lose.

- srbp -

Hebron Development Public Review – quick thoughts #nlpoli

The commission appointed to review the Hebron development application to the offshore regulatory started public hearings in St. John’s this week.

Most of the submissions are available on line.  They are a study in contrasts.

The City of St. John’s, awash in oil cash from the industry directly or via the provincial government, had probably one of the lightest and most superficial presentations anyone could make.

Their Earth-shattering observations:

• Mechanisms for ongoing exchange of current,  relevant information, as well as forecasts, would be advantageous.
• Benefits from previous projects have been considerable and extensive.
• It is important to work together and engage groups as we move forward to realize the many benefits that can be incurred and ensure a legacy for the future.

Lightweight, superficial, motherhood, apple pie, the flag and any other moth-eaten cliché.

The second bullet is a remarkable about-face for a city that waged political war against previous development agreements based entirely on what was – to be sure – partisan bullshit.

There’s an interesting contrast between the Board of Trade presentation and comments by NOIA, the offshore suppliers association.

The Board of Trade argues that one of the the real legacies of Hebron will be knowledge transfer and the development of a strong cadre of local companies that can compete globally for oil and gas work.

Each individual project gets us closer to a sustainable
oil industry in which we achieve benefits that extend  beyond any one project. Skills can be exported to other harsh environments, like the Arctic, which might provide more opportunities in the near future. Experience can be applied to building new industries that will provide employment and wealth creation after the oil runs out. Improvements can be made in how we do business so
that we are a sought after place for future investment and growth.

That is the potential project legacy if we make the right choices and investments.

But NOIA is complaining that the Hebron benefits agreement isn’t delivering as promised:

The Hebron benefits plan adds requirements that are beyond the scale of the current capacity of the local supply and service sector.  The use of the phrase “globally competitive” throughout the benefits plan sets a standard that a small, young industry like ours will
struggle to reach in its present state. In NOIA’s view, the proponent should focus efforts on advancing the local industry toward global competitiveness, rather than make it a condition of local participation in the Hebron project.

NOIA members expect each new project to “raise the bar” on local content and participation at all levels of development and operations – not just increase the person hours of work achieved.  We want to see an increase in the level of specialized work, technology transfer and expertise gained.

That’s actually not surprising.  When the provincial government unveiled the memorandum of understanding and then the final agreements, a number of local observers privately noted that the local guaranteed work components were things the province would get anyway.  Beyond that, the work was relatively unsophisticated work scarcely more advanced than the stuff they did on Hibernia 15 years ago.  What’s worse, other components that could have been developed here wound up going off to other places.

As it appears the provincial government fought hard to get a few things for itself – like an equity position – and left the other local benefits slide.  That’s a very significant departure from the standards set by the development agreements signed before 2003. Those would be the ones the City of St. John’s now praises.

If NOIA’s contention is true, incidentally, that basically means the provincial government oil policy has shifted radically under the Conservatives. As SRBP noted in 2006:

The Wells administration's 1992 Strategic Economic Plan, by contrast, emphasized government policy aimed at strengthening the private sector, diversifying the economy and increasing the ability of local companies, including in the oil and gas sector, to compete effectively on a global basis. Crown corporations were sold off or shut down.

…

Williams' new Hydro corporation returns to an older model based on government subsidy and government dependence. Beyond the attractiveness to some businesses of relying on whatever contracts they can secure from the new Hydro corporation, the political and financial muscle of the state-owned company will likely make it considerably more attractive an investment than a private sector venture, since it will always carry with it a government guarantee of its operations and expenditures. The end result will almost inevitably be a weakening of the local private sector.

 

- srbp -

Dippers policy book implodes #nlpoli #nlvotes

Take this from CBC:

NDP Leader Lorraine Michael says she is not afraid to rip up a contract with the Hebron partners to deliver a three per cent surtax promised in her party's new election platform.

But, in an interview with On Point With David Cochrane, Michael admits that she is not sure how an NDP government would accomplish this, even though the Hebron agreement with the government specifically says the contract cannot be changed.

Understand, first of all, Lorraine and campaign team did not even know about the Hebron fiscal agreements limitation on adding new taxes until someone pointed it out.

Now their campaign platform a smouldering heap.  The financial responsibility thing they were shooting for is gone.

They have no answers.

If the NDP knew how to get around the problem, they’d tell you.  it should be very easy for them. But Lorraine and her gang are flummoxed because they don’t know what they are talking about.

So they fall back on the usual politician’s stock-in-trade.

Bluster, bluff and bullshit all start with the same letter because they are basically the same thing.  Lorraine Michael and the NDP have nothing but those three “B” words to offer now that their fiscally responsible election platform – coughbullshitcough – flaps in tatters in the wind.

And understand, second of all, that  the much bigger problem is the give-away in the Hebron deal itself, all thanks to Danny and Kathy.

Lorraine could have easily pointed that out to everyone.

But she didn’t.

Because she and her crew had no idea what was going on in the first place.

And they still don’t.

Bluff, bluster and bullshit produced the give-away in the first place.

Unfortunately, bluff, bluster and bullshit won’t make her huge credibility problems go away.

- srbp -

The Hebron Give-Away #nlpoli #nlvotes

If the province’s New Democrats form the next provincial government, they’ll have to look somewhere else besides the Hebron oil project for their three percent surtax on crude oil.

Under the 2008 Hebron fiscal agreement, then Premier Danny Williams and his natural resources minister, Kathy Dunderdale agreed to a clause that prevents the government from introducing any new oil revenue charges besides royalties for the life of the Hebron agreement.

Clause 9.1 states that “no additional tax, levy, fee or charge shall be imposed by the Province solely on a Development Project or on the
Proponents solely in relation to their interest in the Lands.”

The term “development project” means:

(i) exploration, development and production of oil resources from the Lands;

(ii) ancillary thereto, the production of gas from the Lands for use solely for the purpose of production of oil from the Lands, not for commercial production and sale; and

(iii) the ownership, construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning and abandonment of all the assets in which the Proponents hold an undivided interest in relation to such activities.

While Hibernia has a good few years left in it, Terra Nova and White Rose won’t last as long.  That means we can only count on having two oil fields in production offshore.  As revenues dwindle and government spending pressures mount, there might be a day when a future provincial government would need to look at how it taxes resources for the benefit of the people of the province.

Thanks to the provincial Conservatives the future government will be screwed over when it comes to Hebron.  They’ve  given away the provincial government’s power to adjust the way it collects rent on behalf of the resource owners – you and your humble e-scribbler – for this lucrative non-renewable resource.

That’s in addition to the royalty giveaway up the front end that the Conservatives attacked before they got into office and when oil prices were low and then gleefully agreed to once they had the power and oil prices skyrocketed.

And even that is in addition to the clause in the Hebron deal that compels the provincial government to side with the oil companies on any regulatory changes the companies think might hurt their interests offshore.

That one – incidentally – is a give-away of incalculable proportions.

Anyway, someone at the NDP office needs to get out the calculator and rework the financial part of their election platform.

While he or she is doing that, the rest of us can wonder what other details they missed entirely in their amazingly low cost platform document.

And some other people will start wondering what else Danny and Kathy gave away without telling us.

- srbp -

Dundernomics 101: the cost of doing business

Premier Kathy Dunderdale, displaying her keen awareness of mathematics – among other things -  in the House of Assembly on Monday, May 9:

Mr. Speaker, Hebron costs are driven by reserves, as are most projects in the offshore. So as we do our delineation work and we find out exactly how much oil is there, then capital costs increase or decrease accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of this work on Hebron, reserves have gone up by 11 per cent. Our costs in capital construction have increased from $360 million to $480 million, Mr. Speaker, and it will also mean an increase of over 50 per cent to the Treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador in royalties and benefits.

Erm.

Not exactly.

Finding more oil in a field doesn’t necessarily increase the capital costs up front.  At Hibernia, for example, the capital costs didn’t jump as they found more and more oil.  The reason is that they could pump the oil out of the ground by drilling wells from the GBS or by using another cheap method.

Operating costs will change, of course.  That’s because they will have to run the production facility in order to get the oil out of the ground.  But day-to-day costs of keeping the wells going is not the same as capital cost, as in construction costs for new facilities to get the oil out of the ground.

In this case, it seems that the Hebron partners have decided to exploit this new oil with tie backs. Odds are that this new oil is some of the light sweet crude in the field. That stuff is easier to get at than the heavier stuff that comprises most of the oil at Hebron.  Plus it also commands a higher price for the crude and yields more reined products out the other end of the refinery.

Tie-backs are essentially pipes that run along the seabed.  They are a relatively cheap way to pump oil since you are not building a new ship or gravity structure to get at the oil.  Instead you just run these giant straws from the existing platform out to the oil.  Bob’s yer uncle.

So this idea that more oil drives up capital costs is just whack.

Then there is the math on the jump in costs.

Used to be the share of costs for Nalcor was $360 million.  Now it is $480 million. That is not an 11% increase.

That’s a 33% jump.

Curious.

Curiouser, it becomes when you realise that while the House of Assembly was closed for a lengthy Easter break, the public found out that costs for the Hebron project had jumped by not 11% or 33% but 66%. 

From $5.0 billion to $8.3 billion.

Something does not add up here.

And it really does not add up when you look at the Premier’s claim that the provincial government’s royalties and benefits will jump by more than 50% as a result of an 11% increase in the oil reserves.

Let’s put some hard numbers on this. 

Let’s say, for argument sake, that the total amount of oil in the field was originally supposed to be 500 million barrels.

An 11% increase would give you a new total of 55 million barrels more oil.

According to the Premier, it cost $360 million for the province’s share of getting the 500 million barrels out of the ground. Finding 55 million more barrels didn’t lower the cost overall or the cost per barrel.  According to Kathy Dunderdale that small amount of oil will cost  - relatively speaking  - more than twice as much per barrel as the original oil.

That’s not a very attractive prospect.  The more oil you find, the more expensive each new chunk takes to produce it.  In fact, it makes no sense to keep finding more oil at Hebron if that is the case.  It won’t take too long before you have boosted costs to the point where the project would never be profitable.

Ah-ha sez you.

But those tiny extra amounts of oil actually produce more profit than the entire Hebron field.

After all, that’s what Kathy Dunderdale said and, Pakled that she is, Kathy is smart.

So it must be true.

Yeah, well, no.

What Kathy said was that this 11% more oil, the stuff that costs twice as much per unit to produce will actually return to the public treasury 50% more royalty and benefits.

To quote a famous politician, nothing could be further from the truth.

Simply put, royalty is a function of the quantity of oil, the price per barrel and the cost of getting it out of the ground. 

Let’s say that those original $500 million barrels produced royalty for the province of $500 million dollars.  According to Dunderdale, the 55 million new barrels would produce more than $250 million or roughly five times the return per barrel of any other barrel of oil.

Theoretically that could happen if the 55 million barrels were somehow handled differently than any other.  But they aren’t.  They are all barrels of oil sold at the same time as others for the same price and under the same royalty regime.

Clear?

Between you and Kathy Dunderdale that makes one of you.

That concludes today’s lesson in Dundernomics.

- srbp -

Where is the Hebron development application?

Last January, the Hebron partners said they’d be submitting their development plan for Hebron to the offshore board by the end of the year.

That would have been December 2010.

Now it’s March 2011 and there’s still no sign of it.

- srbp -

Newfoundland and Labrador Wikileaks References Decoded

labradore deciphers the references to Danny Williams in the coded diplomatic cables that someone leaked already.

Pretty boring, routine stuff.

Of course, that doesn’t mean there might not be other, much more interesting diplomatic cables that mention the Old Man:

• Sino-Energy – a secret deal to share highly confidential information on the Lower Churchill and the north-eastern North American energy system, to a Chinese company with a dubious international reputation;
• Captain Williams of the Ozone Patrol  - Danny goes ballistic over a missile that follows a routine trajectory over the north Atlantic.
• Big Oil’s L’il Buddy – State would have noticed when Danny started batting oil companies around;  they would have really noticed when he decided to let them gain some serious control over the provincial government. 
• And he hates being called Hugo  -  Danny Williams decides to snatch up a bunch of hydroelectric assets under the cover of something else.  Foggy Bottom took notice, big-time.
• Heart Surgery – Yes, folks, lots of people took interest in that episode.

- srbp -

Debunking imaginary conspiracies update:  CBC’s David Cochrane joins in…eventually.

Hebron awards FEED-EPC contract

On August 27, 2010, the consortium developing the Hebron oilfield offshore Newfoundland and Labrador awarded the project’s front-end engineering and design contract to WorleyParsons.

ExxonMobil is the lead partner on the project.

Under the contract, ExxonMobil may, at its discretion, award WorleyParsons with the project’s Engineering, Procurement and Service contract.

According to the project timetable, the consortium are anticipating project sanction in early 2012.

- srbp -

Drill, baby, drill: Dunderdale rebuffs Quebec concerns about border, offshore oil spills

In a letter to Quebec natural resources minister Nathalie Normandeau, Newfoundland and Labrador deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale said that the provincial government had no plans for a moratorium on oil drilling offshore and dismissed any question about the interprovincial border in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The Montreal Gazette reported Wednesday on the exchange of correspondence between the two ministers in a story that highlights the border dispute and its impact on oil exploration in the Gulf.

According to the Gazette, Normandeau wrote Dunderdale to ask what measures were contemplated in light of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Dunderdale replied that Newfoundland had adopted "new oversight measures," had no plans for a moratorium on offshore drilling, and noted Normandeau's reference to a " 'cross-border geological structure,' by which I assume you are referring to the Old Harry prospect."

There’s no clear indication when the letters flew back and forth but the provincial government’s position has been clear since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in late April.

Premier Danny Williams dismissed calls for an offshore drilling moratorium in early June.  As in his remarks in early May, Williams focused on three fields in the north Atlantic.  He ignored other areas including the Gulf of St. Lawrence where the Old Harry field promises to match or dwarf Hibernia in size.

Williams referred to meetings he held in Calgary with officials of two companies operating offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.  As CBC reported,

The premier said he's confident the companies are doing everything possible to prepare in case a similar situation ever happens off the province's shores.

"I also asked them to elaborate for me on what additional measures have been put in place and am actually in the process of preparing a list and would only be too delighted to provide a list of the safeguards that were in place and the additional safeguards that are being put in place," Williams said…

It was not clear from the context of his comments if he was meeting with them in his capacity as premier of the province or as their de facto partner in offshore oil development. In some respects that wouldn’t matter since under some conditions of the Hebron agreement, Williams is legally obliged to follow the position dictated by the oil companies to oppose any new regulations that would  - in the opinion of the oil companies – adversely affect Hebron development.

Corridor Resources holds exploration permits from Quebec and from the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for the Old Harry field.  Work on the permits has been hampered by a dispute over the border between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador and by the absence of a jurisdiction arrangement between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada over the seabed resources in the Gulf.

While Danny Williams has been focusing his public comments on the distant offshore – and downplaying the implications as a result -  a spill from any future Old Harry development could have disastrous consequences.  This map, produced earlier this year, shows a map of the British Petroleum spill superimposed on Old Harry.

The dashed lines represent interprovincial boundaries but, for Newfoundland and Labrador,  only the one between the province and Nova Scotia is formally in place.  The boundary with Quebec shown in this map has never been formally adopted.

- srbp -

Opportunity for comment – Hebron project

From the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board:

“The public is invited to comment on the draft Comprehensive Study Report (CSR) for the Hebron Development Project being proposed by ExxonMobil Canada Properties on behalf of the Hebron Project Proponents: Chevron Canada Limited, Petro-Canada Hebron Partnership, Statoil Canada Ltd., and Nalcor Energy – Oil and Gas Inc.

The Hebron Project will include activities associated with installation, drilling and production, maintenance, and decommissioning of a concrete gravity-based structure (GBS) at the Hebron field, northeast Grand Banks. The Hebron Project will involve construction activities at two locations, the Hebron field and the Bull Arm marine facilities in Bull Arm, Trinity Bay. Construction activities are scheduled to commence in 2012, with petroleum production to begin in 2016 or 2017.

Before any petroleum-related activity can be undertaken in the Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Area, a detailed and location-specific Environmental Assessment (EA) must be submitted to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB). In addition, this project is subject to the federal environmental assessment process pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The CEA Act requirements indicate this environmental assessment must be reviewed using the comprehensive study process as the project involves the proposed construction or installation of a facility for the production of oil or gas, if the facility is located offshore.

Pursuant to Section 21(1) of the CEA Act, the C-NLOPB, on behalf of the responsible authorities for the federal environmental assessment of the project (C-NLOPB, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, Environment Canada and Industry Canada), is inviting the public to comment on the proposed draft CSR. The draft CSR was completed pursuant to the CEA Act and the Scoping Document prepared by the C-NLOPB and the other responsible authorities.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will provide an opportunity for public comment on the final CSR at a later date.

Comments must be received by the C-NLOPB no later than Wednesday August 11, 2010. Interested persons may submit their comments in the official language of their choice to information@cnlopb.nl.ca or to the following address:”

Public Comments – Hebron Development Project

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board

5^th Floor, TD Place

140 Water St., St. John’s, NL

A1C 6H6

(709) 778-1400

Big Oil has L’il Buddy available for offshore fight #cdnpoli #oilspill

If the oil companies operating offshore don’t like environment minister Jim Prentice’s plans to toughen up environmental and safety rules offshore, they might well be able to count on a very potent ally:  Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams.

As BP told you last May, under section 5.1 of the Hebron fiscal agreement, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is obliged to side with the oil companies in fighting any regulatory change if the industry feels the changes “might adversely affect any Development Project” of the Hebron field.

David Pryce, vice-president of operations for the Canadian Association of Petroleum producers is quoted in the Globe cautioning against what the Globe and Mail described as “potentially punitive regulations”:

“Don’t be too quick to respond, and don’t be too restrictive. That’s a concern for the industry,” said David Pryce, vice-president of operations at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in Calgary.

“The fact that there is this concern, and there are a lot of people talking about could it happen here, the [concerns] are do we get a response that’s beyond what’s needed here.”

On Monday, Danny Williams told the provincial legislature that offshore production operations here meant that an accident might be less likely to spill oil onshore compared to the incident in the Gulf of Mexico. During Question Period, Williams said:

From our own perspective, as recently as this morning, we have looked at just exactly what the situations are in the North Atlantic. It is a general understanding that because the offshore sites are significantly offshore and well east of the Province that the situation that could arise in Orphan Basin or Jeanne d’Arc or the Flemish Pass is that there is a lower likelihood that oil would actually come ashore in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, that is not to say that it would not.

As well, we are dealing with a heavy crude oil out there, so from a fishing perspective, there is less likelihood that it would affect the fishery although it would certainly affect the gear. However, having said that, I am not trying to minimize the circumstances under any situation, we will make sure that we monitor this very closely and that we adopt the best practices in the world.

Only the Hebron oil field will produce heavy crude.  The others all produce oil of roughly the same weight relative to water as the oil currently leaking in the Gulf of Mexico (API 34).

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador  - through its wholely owned subsidiary NALCOR - is a direct partner in offshore development with ownership stakes in one of the producing fields and with stakes in two projects under development, including the massive Hebron project.

While Prentice has no direct say in regulating the offshore, he appears to be echoing sentiment in the federal government for strong offshore regulation.

Under the 1985 Atlantic Accord, the Newfoundland Offshore Area is regulated through the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.  The board is a joint venture between the the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

-srbp-

Hebron deal may affect future offshore spill response #oilspill

Premier Danny Williams assured the people of the province on Monday that his administration will ensure that “the necessary policies, procedures and processes are put in place…” to deal with an offshore oil spill like the one in the Gulf Of Mexico.

During Question Period in the provincial legislature, Williams also said that “the people of the Province can be assured that we will adopt the best practices in the world. As we come to this process now in the Gulf of Mexico, if there are any new devices or methodologies or technologies that are developed, we will make sure that they are adopted in our offshore.”

Williams said that offshore petroleum board “is responsible primarily for any offshore problems. If it comes to any leakages or seepages that come from tankers or ship transports, then that is the responsibility, of course, of Transport Canada.”

Williams also told the legislature that “we are dealing with a heavy crude oil out there, so from a fishing perspective, there is less likelihood that it would affect the fishery although it would certainly affect the gear.”

But as Bond Papers noted exactly one year ago, under section 5.1 of the Hebron financial agreement, “The Province shall, on the request of the Proponents…support the efforts of the Proponents in responding to any future legislative and regulatory changes that may be proposed by Canada or a municipal government in the Province that might adversely affect any Development Project, provided such action does not negatively impact the Province or require the Province to take any legislative or regulatory action respecting municipalities.”

In other words, should the federal government – Transport Canada, for example – try to beef up offshore regulations, the provincial government would be obliged to oppose such changes if the oil companies felt they would “adversely affect” the Hebron development and asked the provincial government for support.

That intervention might be much easier in a situation involving heavy oil if, as the Premier asserted, “there is less likelihood that it would affect the fishery although it would certainly affect the gear.”

Of the fields in production or under development, only the Hebron field contains heavy oil.  The producing fields – Hebron, Terra Nova and White Rose – all pump light, sweet crude of about the same weight compared to water (API) as the oil currently spilling into the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico (API 34).

While prevailing winds and currents may not bring the oil from any of those fields to shore in Newfoundland and Labrador, there’s no public indication of how far across the Atlantic a spill might go and what impact it might have in Europe. 

Williams also did not discuss an contingencies to deal with an oil disaster on the south coast of the island, the coast of Labrador or in a Gulf of St. Lawrence development such as one potentially at Old Harry.

Williams did say that, as far as the provincial government’s offshore equity stakes go,  “the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador stands behind the environmental liabilities no different than the Abitibi situation. When environmental disasters happen, we go to our primary source of responsibility and then the government, of course, is the backup at the end of the day.”

-srbp-

Province may lose big-time in Hebron royalty give-away

According to the Telegram, the Hebron partners won’t be filing their development application for the project until December 2010.

That’s a full year behind the original schedule but the companies claim it won’t impact anticipated first oil in 2017.

This is the second change to the project in two months.  The full implication of cancelling pre-drilling still hasn’t been determined.  It appears to have been dumped to avoid significant challenges posed by dropping the gravity base structure onto a pre-drilled template.

But the wider implications are still uncertain.  Pre-drilling would have allowed the project to get to full production very quickly.  As it is, production wells will now be drilled from the single derrick planned for the Hebron GBS. It took Hibernia five years to hit full production and that was using two derricks.

Delays in hitting full production will affect the timeline for the project to hit payout and that will affect the provincial government’s royalty take over the life of the project.

In signing the Hebron deal, the provincial government agreed to a flat one percent royalty until the project recovers its development costs (payout).  The generic royalty and the regime used for Hibernia and Terra Nova used a sliding scale that saw the provincial share increase steadily to a maximum of 7.5% based on cumulative production.

In 2007, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale said the flat royalty was a way of giving the companies insurance against low oil prices:

“The rationale behind these changes was the companies needed some downside protection if the price of oil went very, very low,” Natural Resources Minister Kathy Dunderdale said.

“So, that was the tradeoff [sic] for us — to give them protection if oil prices really plummeted, to get a gain if prices were high, above $50. So, we traded off some risk on the low end for significant gains on the other end.”

The provincial government’s entire assumption about the royalty give-away seems to have been based on the idea that payout would occur quickly.

But if oil prices remain high, the period during which the basic royalty remains at just one per cent shortens significantly.

“Normally, in terms of the basic royalty, even under generic, you go through those stages pretty quickly,” Dunderdale noted.

However, even at relatively high oil prices, lower production rates would drag out the time needed to pay off development costs.  And – looking at it logically -  the provincial government would lose significantly more in the process. That’s a point Dunderdale didn’t mention in 2007.

Dunderdale did mention the price of oil, which appears to have been a huge factor in provincial government thinking.  In exchange for the flat royalty give-away at the front end, the provincial government banked on recouping its losses if oil stayed above US$50 per barrel.  As Dunderdale told CBC in August 2007:

"You know, it's going to be a long time by anybody's estimates that we're ever going to see oil less than $50 a barrel," Dunderdale said. "We gave something on the downside which is low-risk to us to achieve a very high gain on the upside."

The “long time” turned out to be two years. [Time Travel Update:  or is Mathematically Challenged?  Oil hit 50 bucks a barrel within a year or so of her  great pronouncement.  it was less than 40 bucks a barrel a few months after that.]

The Hebron changes in December raise once more questions about the assumptions used by the provincial government in negotiating the royalty regime.    Slower time to full production could stretch payout to 10 years or more.  The provincial government appears to have operated on the assumption that oil would remain high throughout the initial production and post-payout phases.

A decade to payout is one one of the implications noted in Bond Paper’s preliminary look at the Hebron royalty.  The following chart used a relatively low price for oil and assumed high development costs.  It didn’t consider any delay in getting to full production but did anticipate taking a decade to hit payout.

-srbp-