Williams concedes on royalties (2007) #nlpoli

As Bond Papers noted on Thursday, part of the Hebron deal will involve a change to the provincial royalty regime local media are characterising as a concession.

The Telegram reported on Friday morning that the province will indeed lower the initial royalty to a flat 1% on gross from an escalating regime that maxed at 7.5% until the project recovered its initial development costs.

After that, royalties jumped to a combined 305 in two separate tiers. After simple payout, provincial royalties were based on net profits which provided the companies with a rate of return allowance.

Under the royalty regime for Hebron, the province will collect 1% for as long as it takes the project to recover start-up costs.

The return of the past in our present

1.  Past master of his domain: Lin Jackson, intellectual godfather of Newfoundland neo-nationalism during the 1980s comes out of retirement to pen a letter in the Wednesday Telegram. Sadly, it isn't online.

Here's an excerpt:

It was thus on Quebec's behalf that Pierre Trudeau's Supreme Court of Canada circumvented our constitutional right to free transmission of power across provinces; it was deference to favoured foreign nations that caused Fisheries and Oceans to mismanage, and finally ruin, the Atlantic cod fishery; and the opportunity to use offshore resources to finally become a "have" province was denied us due to Western objections coupled with Harper's view of us as a "culture of defeat.

Three points. 

Three fables.

It's nice to build an argument on things you make up.

2.  Clearyisms:  Before he edited The Independent, Ryan Cleary guided Geoff Sterling's venerable organ, The Herald. Here are some of Ryan's bons mots for your mid-week campaigning enjoyment:

[Jack] Harris' district of Signal Hill/Quidi Vidi takes in [the] east end of St. John's where the granolas live. The granolas are known for their intelligence and artistic flair and for voting against the grain. So many of them started out with high hopes to change the world... They still vote New Democrat, out of habit if nothing else... For the New Democrats, the trek to victory will only begin when the party sees itself as a winner. And not the loser that it is.  (March 2, 2003, p.3)

There have been charges that Williams has too tight a reign [sic] on his caucus. He shakes the criticism off, advising reporters to ask his MHAs if that’s the case. There’s also been talk for years that Williams has a fiery temper, and isn’t happy when things don’t go his way. Williams admits to having a temper in his younger years, but says he’s “mellowed with age.” (January 26, 2003)

The character and grit of a Williams’ [sic] government will only reveal itself when the administration stands on its feet and takes sole responsibility for its action. (January 19, 2003)

h/t to Mark Watton's post at democraticspace.com and a loyal reader for these blasts from the past.

-srbp-

An ominous choice of words on ABC

“This is the election that could make and break relations between Newfoundland and Canada forever.”

- John Babb, president of the Provincial Conservative party,

Registered representative of the ABC campaign

VOCM Backtalk, Friday, August 29, 2008

 

Maybe the real objective of the ABC isn't what people claim it is. After all, it apparently isn't about giving the Harper crew a goose egg, at least if we can believe the ABC movement's leader, one Danny Williams.

Nope.

Maybe there's reason to ask Mr. Babb, the registered representative of the campaign with Elections Canada, just exactly what he meant by those words.

-srbp-

 

 

 

 

Deconfusing the royalty confusion

In Friday's National Post, Premier Danny Williams said:

With regards to criticism of modifications to the basic royalty, it is important to note that the change is the difference between 2.5% and 1% -- not between 7.5% and 1% as reported by Mr. Coyne -- in addition, we still maintain the 5%, and in some cases 7.5%, level of royalty once costs are recovered.

For those familiar with the provincial generic royalty regime, this would create some confusion since the situation described by the Premier is not how the existing generic royalty regime works.

The generic royalty regime provides for a basic royalty that increases from 1%, through 2.5%, 5% to a maximum of 7.5% depending on when the project achieves simple payout. Under provincial petroleum regulations, simple payout occurs when cumulative gross revenue and incidental revenue exceeds the sum of allowable pre-development costs, capital expenditures, operating expenditures and basic royalty paid.

After simple payout is achieved, the royalty paid is the greater of the basic royalty rate (assessed on gross revenue) or the net royalty rates of 20% and 10% after an allowed rate of return.

In order for the adjustment to basic royalty in the pre-payout phase to be the difference between "2.5% and 1%" - as the Premier states - the Hebron project would have to recover its eligible costs within the first two to three years of production or less. His comment assumes an extremely optimistic scenario.

The Premier referred to total costs of between $7 and $11 billion in the 22 August announcement. Taking that as the amount to be recovered (pre-development plus development plus operating expenses and royalties fixed at 1% annually), and given the scenarios contained in two previous Bond Papers preliminary assessments, cumulative gross revenue would exceed $7.0 billion after about three to four years.

At that point, the basic royalty under the generic regime would likely about 5.0%. Thus the difference between Williams' Hebron and the generic regime would be the difference between 1% (Williams) and 5% 9generic). If costs are higher and the time to simple payout is longer, then the generic regime would likely reach 7.5%.

At the same time the Premier said that : "in addition, we still maintain the 5%, and in some cases 7.5%, level of royalty once costs are recovered". This is correct, however, under the existing petroleum regulations, those rates would apply - and the province would collect that revenue - only in a situation where the basic royalty produced more revenue than the Tier 1 and Tier 2 net royalties. Presumably under the Williams regime, this would also include the Tier 3 royalty.

In other words, in a scenario where the basic royalty was paid at 5% or 7.5% after simple payout, none of the much higher rates on net royalty - including the Premier's new Tier 3 - would be paid. This point is explained by provincial government documents.

The royalty regime appears to have been adjusted for Hebron as indicated in the 22 Aug news to a flat 1% royalty due at the commencement of production. This replaces the generic regime that started at 1% and would likely have increased to 5% or more by the time of simple payout. At the same time, the regime under the proposed Williams' Hebron regime is, to paraphrase natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale, a decision to forego revenues (royalties) in the initial years of production for possible royalties in the later stages.

This is an understandable compromise given the cost issues in the project, but it does reduce the initial royalty accruing to the province likely by between 4% and 6.5%. Any revenue foregone in the initial phase of the project may be recovered subsequently but only as long as prices for oil stay above $50 per barrel for WTI (Tier 3 royalties apply). Again, depending on how the Tier 3 royalty works this may be an understandable compromise. Unfortunately there is insufficient information in the public domain to assess the potential performance of the Tier 3 royalty.

The revenue accruing to the energy company does not offset this royalty concession. in the initial stages of production, the provincial energy company will be recovering its own share of the development costs. it is also liable for operating expenses, provincial taxes, federal taxes and other costs.[Note: see below] Thus any revenue, it collects must be assessed on a net basis.
Royalties are received by the provincial government acting as the resource owner (100%), without any liabilities; the net and the gross are identical figures. The provincial government collects and retains 100% of royalties with no revenue from royalties accruing to the federal government.

-srbp-

Note: Under s. 41 of the 1985 Atlantic Accord, Crown corporations receive no exemptions or special treatment with respect to taxes and other payments to the federal and provincial Crowns.:

Crown corporations and agencies involved in oil and gas resource activities in the offshore area shall be subject to all taxes, royalties and levies.

As a result of the Hebron memorandum of understanding, the Government of Canada will collect revenues from the provincial government's share of overall revenues which it ordinarily would not collect. These come in the form of federal corporate taxes, for example.

Masters of our domain: Andrew Coyne weighs in

An astute, perceptive comment from one analyst who actually can do math and thinks about things:

But here's another thing that bothers me, Danny. Leave aside how much you've given up in royalties to get that ownership stake. Why make such a trade at all? After all, the royalties in question are paid on gross revenues -- whereas ownership in the project entitles you, not just to a share of revenues, but a share of the costs. These have already climbed, from an estimated $6-billion to ... well, no one seems to have a very clear idea what it will cost at this point.

But let's say it's closer to $10-billion, all told. That 4.9% equity stake lets you -- or rather the taxpayers -- in for another $500-million in costs, against about $2.5-billion in revenues, if oil stays at US$70 a barrel, or $1.5-billion at $50. So your share of the profits, over the life of the project, are between $1-billion and $2-billion. If the same money could be collected, at considerably less risk, in the form of royalties, why the fixation on public ownership?

I know: it's to give the province "a window" on the industry. But at 4.9%, the province would have precious little say in the operation. And it's hard to see what sort of leverage it would have, as a shareholder, that it would not have as a regulator, or what information it would not be able to obtain from regulatory filings, legislative hearings and private talks. Indeed, there's something bizarre about the government paying for the right to participate in the extraction of a resource it already owns.

Food for thought, although the legions will find some reason to dismiss Andrew Coyne's common sense, typically by focusing on something other than disproving his common-sensical comments.

-srbp-

(h/t to an astute local Coyne reader who flipped Bond an e-mail.)

Masters of our domain: Williams concedes on royalties

As Bond Papers noted on Thursday, part of the Hebron deal will involve a change to the provincial royalty regime local media are characterising as a concession.

The Telegram reported on Friday morning that the province will indeed lower the initial royalty to a flat 1% on gross from an escalating regime that maxed at 7.5% until the project recovered its initial development costs.

After that royalties jumped to a combined 305 in two separate tiers. After simple payout, provincial royalties were based on net profits which provided the companies with a rate of return allowance.

Under the royalty regime for Hebron, the province will collect 1% for as long as it takes the project to recover start-up costs.

The Telegram reports Dunderdale as saying that the royalty then would climb to 5% until the companies exhaust something called a "return allowance". This would represent a new royalty layer not included in previous agreements and also is a piece of information not previously released by the government. No further details were contained in the Telegram story.

Only after the return allowance for the 5% rate is exhausted would the province receive the higher royalty rate of 30%. Terra Nova is currently paying at the 30% level. White Rose will also hit that level within three years of production start up. Hibernia - a considerably more expensive project comparable in some ways to Hebron - is expected to hit the higher tier royalties around 2011, 14 years after production started.

Under the three existing royalty arrangements and the province's generic scheme, royalties are tied to production levels and time, as well as costs. However, the so-called super royalty for Hebron of 6.5% is actually contingent on oil prices being above US$50 per barrel for West Texas Intermediate at a point beyond simple payout and exhaustion of the 5% rate.

The royalty re-arrangement is correctly described as a gamble. It trades guaranteed royalty levels that don't depend on oil prices to exist.

Dunderdale told news media that the changed royalty regime is designed to provide the oil companies with front-end protection - i.e. reduced costs - against plummeting oil prices. Those same low oil prices the companies needed insurance against on the costly Hebron venture would also wipe out the super royalty under certain conditions.

The Telegram reported her comments this way:

"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 trade off 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."

It's important to note, though, that the lowered royalty scheme in the province's concession essentially provides the protections sought by the oil companies in the first round of talks when they sought tax concessions. Those concessions were rejected at the time by the province.

Premier Danny Williams said in April 2006 that those concessions would have wiped out the benefits of the equity position he was seeking.

In April 2006, Williams also criticised a reduction in the generic royalty regime, considered at one time under Premier Roger Grimes, even though that is essentially what he announced on Wednesday. Grimes considered an adjustment to the royalty regime - including lower initial royalties as Williams agreed to this week - at a time when oil was well below US$50 per barrel.

CBC reported Williams attitude in 2006:

"I've indicated publicly before, when Mr. Grimes offered the more favourable royalty regime, that I wasn't in favour of that," Williams said.

" We now have a situation where we have plus-$55 oil … so there's a lot of profit in the oil industry … and so we expect to get a good return," he said.

The Telegram story - headlined "Province concedes on early royalties" - has been picked up across the country. It appears in Cape Breton Post, and a CBC version is available internationally on the CBC website.

-srbp-

Masters of our domain: the [insert list of superlatives here] deal in the history

In 2002 and 2003, then-opposition leader Danny Williams made a big deal out of demanding to see not only the memorandum of understanding but the final legal text of the agreement to develop Voisey's Bay.

Then Premier Roger Grimes relented to the attacks, tabled the MOU in the legislature and out it to a free vote in the House. It passed with a couple of opposition members bucking the party line to vote with the government members.

Fast forward to Williams' own MOU on Hebron. As Premier Danny Williams is touting the need for near complete secrecy as a "normal" part of deals like this. He even chided reporters for getting too close to the copy of the document he waved about during the hastily called news conference announcing the tentative deal.

Asked about putting the deal in front of the legislature, Williams told reporters he "hadn't even thought about it" but that the deal was so good ratification would not be a question. Not really the point, though since as a government measure the thing would pass in all likelihood anyway. Not really the point either since Williams' set the standard by which he'll be measured on the very sort of issue of openness, transparency and accountability

Members of the opposition have been asking Williams to release the document.

Such is the story that both CBC's Here and Now and The Telegram carried stories today highlighting the stark contrast between Danny Williams then and now.

But "hadn't thought about it?"

Natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale, taking a leaf from her boss' copy of Hyperbole for Beginners, publicly defend the cone of silence on the MOU on Thursday by referring to the current administration as the most open, accountable and transparent administration in the province's history.

Dunderdale, who buggered up a simple explanation of one aspect of the deal during a radio talk show appearance today, even trotted out the old thin-skinned line about supposed personal attacks by the opposition on the Premier and his ministers.

Hadn't thought about it? It only begs the question of how the most open, accountable and transparent administration in the province's history did not think about public disclosure.

Of course, they thought about it.

They thought about it as they agreed with their co-venturers in the oil business to keep the whole thing under wraps.

-srbp-

Incidentally, there's likely a bit more to this issue than the mere claim by "outs" about the nefarious ways of the political "ins", as some have suggested; but that is for another post.

For the record, here are two Canadian Press stories from 2002 on the Voisey's Bay dust-up.

As a curiosity, note that the energy minister at the time was Lloyd Matthews. His daughter worked as communications director with the Liberal administration at the time, including a stint handling comms for current opposition leader Gerry Reid while Reid was provincial fisheries minister.

Where is Lloyd's daughter today?

Well, Elizabeth Matthews bolted from Reid's office suddenly and surprisingly, shortly before the 2003 election to take up a job with Danny Williams.

The rest, as they say, is history, although playing six degrees of separation among the political classes in the province is obviously a fool's errand.

Nfld. premier trying to avoid scrutiny of Voisey's deal - opposition

May 2002

St. John's, Nfld. (CP) -- The only thing standing in the way of an agreement to develop the fabled Voisey's Bay nickel mine is a signature from Newfoundland Premier Roger Grimes, the province's Conservative Opposition leader said Monday.

But Danny Williams said Grimes is stalling because he doesn't want to close the deal and face public scrutiny while the legislature is still sitting.

"Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can sense that a bad deal is about to be made," Williams told a news conference. "Why won't he debate it in the House of Assembly? What is he trying to hide?"

Grimes was out of the province Monday attending an oil industry conference in Houston. But the province's mines minister, Lloyd Matthews, confirmed talks with mining giant Inco Ltd. -- owners of the $4.3-billion mineral deposit -- were in their final stages, though the outcome remains unclear.

"Over the next several weeks, one way or the other, we should bring resolution and clarity as to whether or not there will be a deal," Matthews told the legislature.

Matthews said a number of key issues remain on the table, but no meetings are scheduled with Inco because the company is in the midst of negotiating the terms of benefit agreements with Labrador's main aboriginal groups, the Innu and Inuit.

Williams said while the premier and minister have been coy about discussing the prospects for a deal this spring, executives with Toronto-based Inco have been dropping hints at every opportunity.

Indeed, Inco chief executive Scott Hand has said he hopes construction can begin at the site in northern Labrador by next month.

Meanwhile, there are indications the company has already lined up a contract with the Quebec engineering firm SNC Lavalin, Williams told the legislature.

Earlier, Williams suggested the deal will be announced some time during the last two weeks of this month, after the legislature adjourns for the summer recess.

Wants Debate

Williams said the deal should be brought before the house for debate to ensure the province gets the best deal possible. But Grimes has already rejected that request on the grounds he is not obligated to submit such a business deal for legislative approval.

Grimes will try to avoid public scrutiny of the deal because the Liberal government will be forced to admit it has abandoned the tough stand taken by former Liberal premier Brian Tobin, Williams said.

Tobin won widespread public support when he insisted all the ore extracted from Voisey's Bay had to be processed in Newfoundland. He won two general elections by repeatedly declaring the province wouldn't give away its raw resources so that others could profit from processing the ore into finished nickel.

-30-

All fired up: Opposition politicians expected to demand details of Voisey's Bay deal as House opens

Michael MacDonald (Canadian Press)
Monday, June 17, 2002

Opposition politicians will have one, simple question for Premier Roger Grimes this week when the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature holds a special debate on the Voisey's Bay mining project: Where's the legal text?

The question stems from the Liberal government's decision last week to sign a tentative, $2.9-billion development deal with Inco Ltd. based on a so-called statement of principles, rather than a legally binding commercial agreement.

"That's where the truth lies - the devil is in the details," said Ed Byrne, the Conservative house leader. "About 95 per cent of the details have yet to be negotiated."

During the debate, which starts Tuesday and culminates in a historic free vote Thursday, Conservative Leader Danny Williams will argue the final draft must be held up for public scrutiny.

Grimes has said the legal text will be drafted behind closed doors by a team of lawyers from Inco and the provincial government by Sept. 30, but it won't be up for debate.

The three-day debate on the statement of principles should provide skeptics with all the details they need, he added.

"There are some legitimate concerns, with people seeking a little more information," Grimes told The Telegram on the weekend. "They're looking to have a little better comfort level. ... I think people will have a greater level of comfort after the debate."

Scott Hand, Inco's chief executive, dismissed the Tories' demand for the legal text.

"The statement of principles is a very detailed document," he told reporters last week after speaking to the St. John's Board of Trade. "It really sets out all the commitments, guarantees and remedies required. ... The legal agreement will reflect that quite clearly."

But some observers aren't so sure.

"What about the final deal itself?" asked Peter Boswell, a political science professor at Memorial University. "Is that going to come before the house? If not, then that's why this whole thing is a charade."

Echoes of Charlottetown accord

Boswell said the political sparring over the Voisey's deal reminded him of the debate 10 years ago over the Charlottetown accord - another in a line of ill-fated attempts to bring Quebec into the constitutional fold.

The accord was rejected by 54 per cent of Canadians in a national referendum, but not before popular opinion forced the federal government to release a legal text.

"There's a lot of things in this statement of principles that are open to change," said Boswell.

"The free vote is almost like a public relations exercise. They're just going through motions."

Still, the debate in the House of Assembly could offer direction to the lawyers drafting the final documents, he said.

Too many loopholes: Williams

For example, Williams has suggested the statement of principles contains too many broad exemptions and escape clauses for Inco, which could lead to long delays in the project.

He zeroed in on something called the force majeure clause, which excuses the company from meeting its obligations if it is beset by shortages of supplies, accidents, breakdowns or inflated prices for raw material.

"I've looked at hundreds of these during the course of a legal career," said Williams, who worked as a high-profile lawyer for 30 years before he was acclaimed Tory leader last year.

"This is the weakest, broadest one I've ever seen. There's things in here that are ridiculous."

Provisions "normal"

Not to be outdone, Hand said he's seen more force majeure provisions than Williams has.

"I've been a lawyer for 32 years," he said.

"It's very normal. It's fundamental for financing. It doesn't eliminate our obligations. All it can do is suspend it for a little time."

-30-

Master of our own domain: Give-aways? Did I say give-aways?

From labradore, a little tidbit buried in the middle of a long and detailed dissection of Premier Danny Williams' changing views of the Voisey's Bay deal:

"The video is available on the CTV web site (on the right-hand side, select "CTV Newsnet: Danny Williams answers media questions 7:27", ... .)

At about 1:44 into the video file, in response to a barely-audible question comparing the Hebron MOU to the Voisey's Bay Statement of Principles that he famously condemned, Danny Williams made this amazing concession:

Well, you have to put that in context, there were other issues with regard to that MOU that we had concerns about at the time, and I’m not gonna get into this, because I don’t want to diminish this announcement by diminishing that project, which is a good project, and I’m prepared to say that.

There you have it: Voisey's Bay. Not a giveaway. A good project. Not to be diminished. Danny says so. "


Geez, that wasn't really the first thought that comes to mind when a guy goes from saying something was a give-away or a badly negotiated deal to acknowledging exactly, diametrically, 180 degrees the opposite.

Bully for him for admitting he was wrong five years ago.

or last year, for that matter.

Kinda makes you wonder, though, when Danny Williams came to the conclusion that Voisey's Bay was - in his own words - a good deal.

-srbp-

Masters of our domain: national and international reaction

1. Financial analysts are reacting favourably to news of a pending deal to develop the Hebron oil field offshore Newfoundland.

From the National Post:

For producers like project leader Chevron Corp., as well as Exxon Mobil Corp., Petro-Canada and Norsk Hydro, the good news is that the basic royalty rate remains unchanged at 1% until costs are recovered, UBS analyst Andrew Potter told clients in a note. Previously, this rate increased progressively from 1% to 7.5%.

The bad news: A “super royalty” of 6.5% of net revenue after payout (when oil prices are above US$50 per barrel) has been included.

Mr. Potter thinks the new deal is fair to both parties, adding that these fiscal changes will not make a major difference.

For Petro-Canada (PCA/TSX), the government acquisition values Hebron at $1 per share, in line with the analyst’s revised net asset value for the project. His previous estimate was approximately $1.40 per PCA share, but this was been reduced due to higher capital costs and a later start date.

Note that industry analysts consider it positive that the provincial government's royalty rate has been set at a flat 1% until payout.

Note as well the valuation of the share price in the project. The delay in the project and higher capital costs had the effect of devaluing shares from CDN$1.40 to CDN$1.00.

2. Editorial opinion at the Edmonton Journal holds there may be a lesson in Hebron for Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach who, the newspaper contends, should seek a greater provincial return from the oil industry.

3. Chevron Canada president Mark Nelson told the National Post the provincial government equity position is simply a different way for the provincial government to collect its revenue. That may be a clue that the secret memorandum of understanding contains little if any management power for the province's newly minted energy corporation.

The equity stake comes with an acquisition cost of CDN$110 million, plus potentially up to $540 million in development costs. Potential gross revenue from the 4.9% share would be $2.45 billion over the 25 year estimated lifespan of the project, assuming an average price per barrel of $70. At $50 per barrel, the gross revenue would be approximately $1.5 billion. The cost estimate does not include any other undisclosed liabilities.

4. The Globe and Mail's energy reporter includes some interesting information in his latest story, but concludes with a bizarre claim that the equity position costs may affect the province's entitlement to Equalization:

On the face of it, Mr. Williams's [sic] insistence on an equity position in Hebron could reduce the government's revenues in the medium term, which could make it more likely it would once again receive equalization payments. That's because the Premier has given Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro a mandate to invest heavily in oil and gas and other energy projects - a policy that will divert revenue from general government coffers to the Crown corporation.

Newfoundland and Labrador will no longer qualify for Equalization in the 2009-2010 time frame without Hebron. Under enabling legislation, the newly minted energy corporation is empowered to borrow up to $600 million to finance its operations. As such, there is no diversion of revenue from provincial government coffers.

5. Reaction from some in western Canada's oil patch is mixed, as Report on Business indicates:

Peter Linder, managing director with DeltaOne Capital Partners Inc., said Newfoundland's reputation as a place to do business will get a boost with the Hebron deal but questioned why the province felt it needed an equity stake, given that it owns the resource and would collect a royalty.

"As long as they get their fair share through royalties, why do you need to own equity? I think the equity for Newfoundland is strictly politically motivated."

6. The Chevron/Hebron story made the New York Times. The Times story refers to a royalty base rate of 30%

The tentative pact with the oil companies, he added, also includes an extra 6.5 percent royalty, on top of a 30 percent base rate, and removes the special investment tax credits that the oil industry had demanded.

That version turns up in many of the financial reports. One implication is that lowering royalties at the front end of oil development may be part of a longer term government policy to increase the attractiveness of the local offshore.

Providing an equity stake without management powers might actually minimise the potential total cash cash outlay for operators while helping to defray costs among the operators at the front end. Coupled with a lower royalty regime, the local offshore could become more attractive to investment.

-srbp-

Masters of our domain: province lowers royalty for Hebron pre-payout phase

"I've indicated publicly before, when Mr. Grimes offered the more favourable royalty regime, that I wasn't in favour of that," Williams said.

"We now have a situation where we have plus-$55 oil … so there's a lot of profit in the oil industry … and so we expect to get a good return," he said.

Opposition leader Danny Williams, commenting in 2003 on a proposal by the Grimes administration to lower the royalty regime as an incentive to develop the Hebron oil field

Under the memorandum of understanding announced today by Premier Danny Williams, the provincial government will amend the province's royalty regime to apply a flat 1% royalty levy instead of the progressively increasing royalty regime applied to other projects that raised royalties to as much as 7.5% before the project recovered development costs.

The Hebron partners dropped requests for tax concessions that originated in the first round of negotiations. Asked by reporters about the tax concession demand, the Premier stated the demand had been dropped but did not indicate why.

The value of that concession, suggested by the Premier to be worth $500 million, might well be accommodated by the decreased initial royalties. He told the Financial Post:

"It was a significant move," Mr. Williams said in an interview. "They looked to us to do something. We said we will take our [offer to purchase a 4.9% stake] from $100-million up to $110-million, and then we also took our 7% super royalty ask ... to 6.5%, and we tweaked the timing of payment, and that is basically the deal."

The Premier made similar comments during the news conference, as indicated in CTV Newsnet , but made no mention of the change to the province's royalty regime covering the pre-payout phase.

The backgrounder for the Hebron memorandum of understanding refers to a change to royalty regime to "[p]rovide downside royalty protection by keeping the basic royalty rate at one per cent of gross revenue until project costs are recovered (i.e. simple payout)."

This is extremely curious phrasing since there is no obvious need for "downside royalty protection." Royalties are established by the provincial government under the terms of a development agreement. Since the late 1990s the province's generic regime is intended to apply to projects unless altered through negotiations. It establishes 1% as a floor.

Throughout Hebron discussions, Premier Danny Williams insisted one of his goals was to achieve better royalties than previously earned. He stated that the Hebron MOU announced on Wednesday delivered "unprecedented benefits".

In April 2005, Bond Papers first raised the possibility of an entirely new royalty regime for Hebron and noted the possible risks. this was before the Premier introduced the idea of a provincial oil company with an equity stake in the project.

The provincial government's generic royalty regime for offshore projects - developed in 1996 - clearly establishes the minimum initial royalty to be paid to the provincial government is 1% of gross revenue. This increased progressively based on time and production levels until it reaches 7.5%. it remains at this level until simple payout - the recovery of start-up costs - is achieved. At that point significantly higher royalties begin.

The Terra Nova project achieved simple payout within three years of first oil and currently returns 30% royalties to the provincial treasury. White Rose is expected to achieve simple payout within the next year.

The new super-royalty regime, referred to more accurately as Tier Three royalties by the oil companies, actually doesn't appear to replace this decreased initial royalty. The provincial backgrounder states:

The new super royalty for the province is an additional 6.5 per cent of net revenue at higher oil prices (>US$50 WTI/bbl) after net royalty payout;

As the Hibernia royalty regime indicates "Net Royalty consists of a two tier profit sensitive royalty which becomes effective when Net Royalty Payout occurs." Net royalty payout is the "point in time when the costs related to a particular project are recovered plus a specified return allowance on those costs." A similar concept exists in the province's basic offshore royalty regime.

The provincial government will thus not qualify for this added royalty until after simple payout of the project and only provided that certain additional hurdles are met. One of those hurdles is the requirement that oil prices must be above an average of more than US$50 per barrel for West Texas Intermediate crude oil.

If Hebron first oil is achieved in 2015, simple payout is unlikely to be achieved before 2015 unless oil prices remain in excess of US$70 per barrel for an extended period of time.

Natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale today estimated the project may produce provincial revenues of $16 billion, but this figure must now be held in doubt until the provincial government releases more information.

On the face of it, Dunderdale's figure appeared to be nothing more than an adjustment of Wade Locke's 2006 estimate that put revenues in the range of $8.0 to $10 billion over the life of the project. Locke based his estimate on the existing royalty regime and an assumed average oil price of US$50 per barrel. Dunderdale's figure appeared based on an assumed value of $70 per barrel. However, Locke did not use the modified regime announced on Wednesday.

It is not clear if the equity position would offset the decreased royalty either. Premier Danny Williams said in April 2006 that the 4.9% equity would provide merely an additional $1.5 billion to the province.

According to Wednesday's announcement, the equity stake will cost the province $110 million to acquire plus potentially as much as an additional $539 million as a share of costs, based on the provincial government's development cost estimate of upwards of $11 billion for the project. An revenue coming from the equity stake will accrue to the province's energy company and not to the provincial treasury directly.

-srbp-