While it is nice for Jack Layton to be talking of sending the navy out to deal with illegal fishing off our coasts, one can only wonder if he is actually saying he would prefer an armed confrontation with Spain and Portugal instead of helping people in Afghanistan.
Layton's comments ignore the fact we already have a sizeable and more than adequate force patrolling our coastlines and Canadian airspace.
Facts aren't really the point for Jack, nor is a policy that makes sense. Given the fiasco coming out of last weekend, Layton is merely trying to come up with something he can use to deflect attention from his advocacy of abandoning the people of Afghanistan to local warlords and armed thugs.
If Jack knew what he was talking about he would understand this is not a case of Afghanistan versus some other choice. Canada has the military force to do both.
The really funny thing here - the truly hypocritical thing here - is that New Democrats supposedly want to abandon Afghans because it is dangerous, but as an alternative, Layton is advocating armed confrontations on the high seas with Spanish, Portugese and other European countries in our own backyard.
That hardly sounds like the "peace" policy his Afghan ejection seat option was supposed to be.
13 September 2006
Shag the polls
Despite all the excellent commentary out there that we should all be highly suspicious of public opinion polls, people still report ones coming out of New Brunswick as if they were reliable.
Take for example the Canadian Press story on canadaeast.com, a site that bills itself as Eastern Canada's information source. It deals with a poll conduct by Bristol Group's research arm, Omnifacts.
According to CP, the poll results found that the Lord Tories are in front with 45% of decided voters with the Liberals at 38%. 37% reportedly were undecided.
Further down the story, you'll see a quote from Don Mills, president of Corporate Research Associates, the research company in the CCL Group. He dismisses undecideds claiming that they usually split like the decideds.
The CP story reports the margin of error on this poll at 4.4% at the 95th confidence interval meaning the results would fall with plus or minus 4.4% of the reported figure 95 times if you did 100 polls using exactly the same methodology.
Here's a couple of quick points:
1. CP is wrong. The small sample size doesn't make the margin of error high, the overall survey design does. You can accurately poll national public opinion on a sample only slightly larger than the one used here. You can do New Brunswick with fewer people and get a smaller m of e.
Dig deeper and you'll likely find problems with response rates, sampling methodology, demographics and so forth that are all understandable but all of which can render the results functionally useless.
No sane person would rely on these numbers alone to predict seat counts, for example.
2. Given that both the Omnifacts and CRA polls have such horrendous margins of error (both pushing 5%), simply toss them in the bin. They are useless as a way of telling anything at all about the election.
The polls are only good for the firms releasing them. They get what they want: media coverage to market themselves. Nothing wrong with it but we shouldn't pay any more attention to the results than we would to yet another MacDonald's spot.
Their secondary value is to the party in the lead which can add to the impression - potentially false - that they are heading for a comfortable win or to a trailing party that it is in contention, possibly equally false.
3. As for Mills' ongoing belief that undecideds either break like the decideds or don't count 'cause they won't vote, we can only say "bullshit".
There's no way he can sustain the latter conclusion unless he specifically determined likelihood of voting and then screened those people out from the start. Given his comments, Mills doesn't exclude those people so he gets them in both the undecideds and in the decideds.
He also can't sustain his former conclusion - namely that they break like decideds. They don't. In 1999, undecideds polled after the lone leadership debate in the Newfoundland general election broke heavily Tory. There are countless other examples of the same thing happening.
In interpreting poll results, some people often distribute the undecideds around like the decideds simply as a convenient way of guessing what might happen. But that's a dodgy game unless one has conducted far more in-depth polling than the stuff done by research companies and released like this.
Publicly released polling results during campaigns are fine as long as you understand what they are and what they aren't.
All things considered, the polling in Atlantic Canada elections give a bit of news coverage but people following the elections shouldn't put much stock in them, one way or the other.
Take for example the Canadian Press story on canadaeast.com, a site that bills itself as Eastern Canada's information source. It deals with a poll conduct by Bristol Group's research arm, Omnifacts.
According to CP, the poll results found that the Lord Tories are in front with 45% of decided voters with the Liberals at 38%. 37% reportedly were undecided.
Further down the story, you'll see a quote from Don Mills, president of Corporate Research Associates, the research company in the CCL Group. He dismisses undecideds claiming that they usually split like the decideds.
The CP story reports the margin of error on this poll at 4.4% at the 95th confidence interval meaning the results would fall with plus or minus 4.4% of the reported figure 95 times if you did 100 polls using exactly the same methodology.
Here's a couple of quick points:
1. CP is wrong. The small sample size doesn't make the margin of error high, the overall survey design does. You can accurately poll national public opinion on a sample only slightly larger than the one used here. You can do New Brunswick with fewer people and get a smaller m of e.
Dig deeper and you'll likely find problems with response rates, sampling methodology, demographics and so forth that are all understandable but all of which can render the results functionally useless.
No sane person would rely on these numbers alone to predict seat counts, for example.
2. Given that both the Omnifacts and CRA polls have such horrendous margins of error (both pushing 5%), simply toss them in the bin. They are useless as a way of telling anything at all about the election.
The polls are only good for the firms releasing them. They get what they want: media coverage to market themselves. Nothing wrong with it but we shouldn't pay any more attention to the results than we would to yet another MacDonald's spot.
Their secondary value is to the party in the lead which can add to the impression - potentially false - that they are heading for a comfortable win or to a trailing party that it is in contention, possibly equally false.
3. As for Mills' ongoing belief that undecideds either break like the decideds or don't count 'cause they won't vote, we can only say "bullshit".
There's no way he can sustain the latter conclusion unless he specifically determined likelihood of voting and then screened those people out from the start. Given his comments, Mills doesn't exclude those people so he gets them in both the undecideds and in the decideds.
He also can't sustain his former conclusion - namely that they break like decideds. They don't. In 1999, undecideds polled after the lone leadership debate in the Newfoundland general election broke heavily Tory. There are countless other examples of the same thing happening.
In interpreting poll results, some people often distribute the undecideds around like the decideds simply as a convenient way of guessing what might happen. But that's a dodgy game unless one has conducted far more in-depth polling than the stuff done by research companies and released like this.
Publicly released polling results during campaigns are fine as long as you understand what they are and what they aren't.
All things considered, the polling in Atlantic Canada elections give a bit of news coverage but people following the elections shouldn't put much stock in them, one way or the other.
12 September 2006
Monkey tossing for England
[Amended]
The English have a phrase that if someone is especially good at something, then they could do it "for England."
Like say the guy loves to down pints of his favourite lager; well, he could "Drink for England."
Or, as Janice once said of her ex-husband - for all your Corrie fans - Les could lie for England.
Then there's the thing Danny Williams is famous for: blaming others for something or, as the phrase goes "tossing the monkey" as in putting a monkey on someone's back.
Well, it isn't telling fibs and it isn't drinking but Danny Williams and his gang of followers could toss monkeys for England if the gaggle of Monday news releases from his administration is any indication.
First, there was the scrum in which Williams announced he was giving up the ludicrous fight to put Andy Wells in charge of the offshore regulatory board. It was ludicrous since Williams kept arguing against positions he himself had previously endorsed. The whole sordid mess ended with a Supreme Court justice explaining that Williams' legal theories were nonsense.
[* see explanatory note below* Left: a decidedly unhappy-looking Danny Williams announces defeat in L'affaire Ruelokke. In making the announcement, Williams set a new indoor record for a politician clearing his throat during a scrum as a sign of his discomfort. The previous record was held by former prime minister John Turner.
Williams is also likely soon to break the record for a Newfoundland and Labrador premier saying variations on "quite frankly" during a media interview. The current record is held by Brian Tobin who told a reporter after the 1999 general election: "Quite frankly, I'll be frankly quite frank in answering your quite frank question on a subject which is, frankly, of quite some frank concern among those people who would be both frank and concerned if quite frankly people had been frankly quite frank with them previously."]
But according to Danny the whole thing was Stephen Harper's fault and the fault of "Big Oil", his latest name for the major oil companies. Seems Harper is in love with Big Oil and Big Oil's lobbyists have sway in Ottawa against poor little Danny. Of course, Williams entire argument is bullshit, but it is an example of trying to hang the blame for his own failing on someone else.
On top of that was the release from his natural resources shadow-minister - Kathy Dunderdale - complaining that the feds have not indemnified Inco about environmental pollution to enable the company to build a smelter/refinery complex for Voisey's Bay nickel at their original site at Argentia.
Notice that the headline on the release is about seeking an indemnity for future contamination at the Argentia site. Yet, the body of the release talks about an liability accruing to Inco for environmental damage at the site caused by about 50 years of American military occupation.
Hmmm.
A little later in the release, there is reference to Inco wanting to build the refinery somewhere other than Argentia.
But it isn't correct to suggest - as the release does - that the company would stay at Argentia if the federal government provided any sort of indemnity.
See, Inco has been operating a demonstration plant at Argentia since 2005. One of the big problems with a full-scale operation is that waste would have to be piped around sensitive habitats with the associated risk of contamination, clean-up costs and legal action. At Long Harbour, the company would have access to an already contaminated site with a readily available tailings pond a few feet away. There is also some question that Argentia has some areas that are too contaminated and would take too long to clean up.
Naturally, having looked at the issues involved, Inco announced last January that it would like to locate the full-size plant to Long Harbour for a lot of good reasons.
If all goes according to Inco plans, construction on the new smelter will begin in 2009 and be finished by 2011.
So if Inco isn't interested in Argentia any more, what's Williams doing telling his minister to complain about a lack of response from the federal government on an issue that actually isn't really an issue?
Well, it's just a big monkey being tossed. At Argentia, the federal government is conducting a huge environmental clean-up. At Long Harbour, clean-up and an indemnity would be a provincial responsibility.
Even though it makes a whole pile of sense to build the smelter at Long Harbour instead of Argentia - with nearby Placentia still benefiting from the development - Danny Williams is trying to toss a monkey on the federal government so that he doesn't have to take responsibility.
To make it even funnier, while Dunderdale is looking to keep the smelter at Argentia, her colleague in the environment department is busily processing Inco's application to build at Long Harbour. Left hand? Meet right.
Does anyone see a pattern developing here of blaming everything - and we mean everything - on the feds while the provincial government does little beyond hold meetings and issue monkey tossing news releases?
Funny that Danny Williams seems to some to be laying the groundwork for a separatist agenda. If we took Danny Williams' monkey-tossing at face value, there's likely a good argument he is laying the ground work for his own redundancy.
After all, if it is all Ottawa's fault, then why do we need Danny in the first place? To be at fault you have to be responsible for doing something and so far, Williams has been trying to show everyone how much he isn't responsible for.
That's what happens when you monkey toss for England.
___________________________________
*Note: An e-mail from cbc.ca/nl webmaster John Gushue pointed out that I incorrectly identified the CBC picture in this piece as having been taken at Williams scrum discussing Ruelokke. It wasn't; apparently the shot is a file photo from April. While the photo is indeed of Danny Williams and he is looking somewhat piqued, the shot was not from the Ruelokke-related scrum.
The English have a phrase that if someone is especially good at something, then they could do it "for England."
Like say the guy loves to down pints of his favourite lager; well, he could "Drink for England."
Or, as Janice once said of her ex-husband - for all your Corrie fans - Les could lie for England.
Then there's the thing Danny Williams is famous for: blaming others for something or, as the phrase goes "tossing the monkey" as in putting a monkey on someone's back.
Well, it isn't telling fibs and it isn't drinking but Danny Williams and his gang of followers could toss monkeys for England if the gaggle of Monday news releases from his administration is any indication.
First, there was the scrum in which Williams announced he was giving up the ludicrous fight to put Andy Wells in charge of the offshore regulatory board. It was ludicrous since Williams kept arguing against positions he himself had previously endorsed. The whole sordid mess ended with a Supreme Court justice explaining that Williams' legal theories were nonsense.
[* see explanatory note below* Left: a decidedly unhappy-looking Danny Williams announces defeat in L'affaire Ruelokke. In making the announcement, Williams set a new indoor record for a politician clearing his throat during a scrum as a sign of his discomfort. The previous record was held by former prime minister John Turner.Williams is also likely soon to break the record for a Newfoundland and Labrador premier saying variations on "quite frankly" during a media interview. The current record is held by Brian Tobin who told a reporter after the 1999 general election: "Quite frankly, I'll be frankly quite frank in answering your quite frank question on a subject which is, frankly, of quite some frank concern among those people who would be both frank and concerned if quite frankly people had been frankly quite frank with them previously."]
But according to Danny the whole thing was Stephen Harper's fault and the fault of "Big Oil", his latest name for the major oil companies. Seems Harper is in love with Big Oil and Big Oil's lobbyists have sway in Ottawa against poor little Danny. Of course, Williams entire argument is bullshit, but it is an example of trying to hang the blame for his own failing on someone else.
On top of that was the release from his natural resources shadow-minister - Kathy Dunderdale - complaining that the feds have not indemnified Inco about environmental pollution to enable the company to build a smelter/refinery complex for Voisey's Bay nickel at their original site at Argentia.
Notice that the headline on the release is about seeking an indemnity for future contamination at the Argentia site. Yet, the body of the release talks about an liability accruing to Inco for environmental damage at the site caused by about 50 years of American military occupation.
Hmmm.
A little later in the release, there is reference to Inco wanting to build the refinery somewhere other than Argentia.
Inco notified government on November 30, 2005 of its decision to locate the planned processing plant at a site in the province other than Argentia, as per Section 4.6.4 of the Development Agreement. Based on its own assessment of environmental, legal and business risks, Inco has concluded that it is not economically feasible to use Argentia as the site for a commercial nickel processing facility. The company has since registered a proposed site in Long Harbour for environmental assessment.That's perfectly true. Inco did propose moving to another site, a little farther up the coast from Argentia at a place called Long Harbour. There used to be a phosphorous plant there operated by a company called Erco.
But it isn't correct to suggest - as the release does - that the company would stay at Argentia if the federal government provided any sort of indemnity.
See, Inco has been operating a demonstration plant at Argentia since 2005. One of the big problems with a full-scale operation is that waste would have to be piped around sensitive habitats with the associated risk of contamination, clean-up costs and legal action. At Long Harbour, the company would have access to an already contaminated site with a readily available tailings pond a few feet away. There is also some question that Argentia has some areas that are too contaminated and would take too long to clean up.
Naturally, having looked at the issues involved, Inco announced last January that it would like to locate the full-size plant to Long Harbour for a lot of good reasons.
If all goes according to Inco plans, construction on the new smelter will begin in 2009 and be finished by 2011.
So if Inco isn't interested in Argentia any more, what's Williams doing telling his minister to complain about a lack of response from the federal government on an issue that actually isn't really an issue?
Well, it's just a big monkey being tossed. At Argentia, the federal government is conducting a huge environmental clean-up. At Long Harbour, clean-up and an indemnity would be a provincial responsibility.
Even though it makes a whole pile of sense to build the smelter at Long Harbour instead of Argentia - with nearby Placentia still benefiting from the development - Danny Williams is trying to toss a monkey on the federal government so that he doesn't have to take responsibility.
To make it even funnier, while Dunderdale is looking to keep the smelter at Argentia, her colleague in the environment department is busily processing Inco's application to build at Long Harbour. Left hand? Meet right.
Does anyone see a pattern developing here of blaming everything - and we mean everything - on the feds while the provincial government does little beyond hold meetings and issue monkey tossing news releases?
Funny that Danny Williams seems to some to be laying the groundwork for a separatist agenda. If we took Danny Williams' monkey-tossing at face value, there's likely a good argument he is laying the ground work for his own redundancy.
After all, if it is all Ottawa's fault, then why do we need Danny in the first place? To be at fault you have to be responsible for doing something and so far, Williams has been trying to show everyone how much he isn't responsible for.
That's what happens when you monkey toss for England.
___________________________________
*Note: An e-mail from cbc.ca/nl webmaster John Gushue pointed out that I incorrectly identified the CBC picture in this piece as having been taken at Williams scrum discussing Ruelokke. It wasn't; apparently the shot is a file photo from April. While the photo is indeed of Danny Williams and he is looking somewhat piqued, the shot was not from the Ruelokke-related scrum.
11 September 2006
Danny on L'affaire Ruelokke
Following are some observations on Danny Williams' scrum announcing he would be confirming the appointment of Max Ruelokke as chairman and chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB). CBC Radio's On the Go played excerpts of the scrum this afternoon:
1. It's history. While it took an inordinately long amount of time, the Premier has finally done the right thing. There are good words coming from both Ruelokke and the Premier. Ruelokke is a professional and so this matter should be in the past, as Ruelokke described it.
It's over. let's get on with the business of properly regulating the province's offshore resources.
2. Take the hint. In response to a question from the Telegram's Craig Jackson, Williams acknowledged he had been trying to get Andy appointed as vice-chairman. The federal government rejected the proposal, according to the Premier.
Two completely different federal governments have rejected Wells; it's time for the Premier to take the hint.
3. Bond Papers likely won't get credit... for Wells' appointment. We noted last July, when the whole matter first blew up, that while Wells didn't meet the job specs agreed to by the province, the Premier had a seat on the offshore board he could use any time he wanted. If Danny had appointed Andy last year, Andy would have had over a year of practical experience to offset whatever shortcomings his background had in consideration for the top job at the board.
4. So where was our lobbyist? Danny Williams accused the federal government of being swayed by Big Oil and its paid lobbyists.
That begs the question of what Williams was doing himself on a file he considered so vital.
But if Danny didn't have time to fly to Ottawa and work the rooms, one wonders what his new personal envoy to the National Archives has been doing. Now John Fitzgerald has only been in the job since May, but surely he has been doing something to lobby the federal government on this supposedly crucial issue.
At the same time, Danny could have replaced Bill Rowe much more quickly than he did, thereby ensuring his voice was being heard upalong.
5. Compare apples to apples, Dan-o. In the scrum, Danny mentioned the United States Senate upping royalties on its offshore lands, claiming its ironic the Canadian federal government is supposedly giving Big Oil a break.
Well, right off the bat, Danny knows full well that Danny Williams sets royalties in the local offshore. The feds have nothing - nada, zilch, zip and zero - to do with it.
More to the point though, the Premier knows - or ought to know - that our royalty regimes for the offshore are lower at the outset, but as with Terra Nova, once the start-up costs are paid, the province starts collecting royalties on the order of 30%.
Compare that to the United States where a rider on a US$460 billion defense appropriation will remove the policy of waiving royalties altogether on difficult offshore fields and restore them to the usual 12% to 16%. That's what Danny was referring to, but he just wouldn't admit that our royalty regime never waives royalties altogether and can deliver to the province more than double the American federal royalty. There is no state royalty on the affected fields.
Our royalty regime - set solely by the provincial government, i.e. Danny Williams - is actually better than the American regime in that respect. The big difference between us and them is that they actually create incentives for companies to invest in field development.
1. It's history. While it took an inordinately long amount of time, the Premier has finally done the right thing. There are good words coming from both Ruelokke and the Premier. Ruelokke is a professional and so this matter should be in the past, as Ruelokke described it.
It's over. let's get on with the business of properly regulating the province's offshore resources.
2. Take the hint. In response to a question from the Telegram's Craig Jackson, Williams acknowledged he had been trying to get Andy appointed as vice-chairman. The federal government rejected the proposal, according to the Premier.
Two completely different federal governments have rejected Wells; it's time for the Premier to take the hint.
3. Bond Papers likely won't get credit... for Wells' appointment. We noted last July, when the whole matter first blew up, that while Wells didn't meet the job specs agreed to by the province, the Premier had a seat on the offshore board he could use any time he wanted. If Danny had appointed Andy last year, Andy would have had over a year of practical experience to offset whatever shortcomings his background had in consideration for the top job at the board.
4. So where was our lobbyist? Danny Williams accused the federal government of being swayed by Big Oil and its paid lobbyists.
That begs the question of what Williams was doing himself on a file he considered so vital.
But if Danny didn't have time to fly to Ottawa and work the rooms, one wonders what his new personal envoy to the National Archives has been doing. Now John Fitzgerald has only been in the job since May, but surely he has been doing something to lobby the federal government on this supposedly crucial issue.
At the same time, Danny could have replaced Bill Rowe much more quickly than he did, thereby ensuring his voice was being heard upalong.
5. Compare apples to apples, Dan-o. In the scrum, Danny mentioned the United States Senate upping royalties on its offshore lands, claiming its ironic the Canadian federal government is supposedly giving Big Oil a break.
Well, right off the bat, Danny knows full well that Danny Williams sets royalties in the local offshore. The feds have nothing - nada, zilch, zip and zero - to do with it.
More to the point though, the Premier knows - or ought to know - that our royalty regimes for the offshore are lower at the outset, but as with Terra Nova, once the start-up costs are paid, the province starts collecting royalties on the order of 30%.
Compare that to the United States where a rider on a US$460 billion defense appropriation will remove the policy of waiving royalties altogether on difficult offshore fields and restore them to the usual 12% to 16%. That's what Danny was referring to, but he just wouldn't admit that our royalty regime never waives royalties altogether and can deliver to the province more than double the American federal royalty. There is no state royalty on the affected fields.
Our royalty regime - set solely by the provincial government, i.e. Danny Williams - is actually better than the American regime in that respect. The big difference between us and them is that they actually create incentives for companies to invest in field development.
Fallow Fields: enhancing competitiveness and fostering activity
[Reprinted, with permission, from NOIA News, August/September 2006]
In the early months of 2006, the phrase "use it or lose it" received a great deal of attention in Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil and gas industry. The idea that offshore licences should be relinquished if the holders have not worked them for a given period has been debated, off and on, over the past three decades. More recently, "fallow acreage" or "fallow field" regulations were raised during the consultation on Newfoundland and Labrador’s soon-to-be-finalized energy plan: stakeholders on all sides of the equation weighed in on the potential impacts of changing land tenure regulations. However, the concept shifted rapidly from theoretical to practical when it emerged in the public arena after Hebron negotiations were suspended.
In the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore jurisdiction, once a significant discovery licence has been issued, it continues to be in force as long as the associated declaration is in force. The Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB) can, under defined circumstances predominantly related to the need for national security of supply, order that a well be drilled on a portion of a significant discovery area [SDA] (Section 75 of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act). Additionally, under Section 148 of the same legislation the CNLOPB can order commencement of production, when the chief conservation officer is of the opinion that the capability exists to do so and that not doing so will in some way allow the asset to waste. However, this instrument has been criticized as difficult to apply under an argument of commercial wastage, unnecessarily blunt and potentially counterproductive. Most importantly, an attempt to encourage activity in this way would in all probability heighten this jurisdiction’s current reputation as excessively proscriptive.
The good news is that some of the issues inherent in the current licensing system are being addressed, and more responsive regulatory instruments are being developed.
The 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador call for bids, for example, contained provisions for rentals during the term of an exploration licence [EL] awarded in that bid process and during the term of any resulting significant discovery licence [SDL]. The rates escalate, depending on how long the licence is held, however, rental paid can be credited to allowable expenditure.
During the province’s energy plan consultation, another SDL-related issue was raised by several stakeholders, including NOIA. Phonse Fagan, a St. John’s-based petroleum consultant, stated the case succinctly: “Ultimately the oil company should be required to prove that oil/gas can flow to the surface at rates that have some potential to be economic before a significant discovery licence is issued.” Under the current system, non-commercial discoveries can be held in perpetuity without a requirement for further testing to fully explore their potential. As a result, Newfoundland and Labrador is home to twelve significant discoveries containing fewer than 40 million barrels of oil and eight containing fewer than 0.5 trillion cubic feet of gas – well below the commercial threshold for this environment today, much less two decades ago when they were awarded.
The core licensing objectives - driving development without hindering competitiveness, identifying the full potential of a discovery and encouraging commitment to development - must all be addressed in order to establish a regime that is both competitive and sustainable. To a large degree, these issues have been addressed by the United Kingdom’s Fallow Initiative, which has received international attention for its positive affect on exploration rates on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
The UK’s Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) initiated the fallow acreage process in 2002 as a way to drive activity in inactive older licences. The oldest inactive licences had an initial term of 6 years with a second term lasting as long as 40 years and often covering multiple blocks. Under these terms, licences issued in the UK’s first offshore call for bids do not expire until 2010.
It is important to understand that although retroactive, the application of fallow field legislation in the United Kingdom is a cooperative process. As part of Promote UK, a joint initiative of DTI and the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA) designed to attract new entrants, the Fallow Initiative is supported by a range of tools enabling market awareness and access to information.
Initially, fallow blocks and discoveries are identified in discussion with the operator and other licensees. The process then classifies these areas as either Class A (blocks with a recent change of ownership or technical barrier) or Class B (blocks with an identified misalignment of interests). For Class B blocks, a formal invitation is issued to the licence holder for an activity report to take the block out of fallow. If there is no progress, the block is placed on the LIFT (Licence Information for Trading) Fallow Register. The Fallow Register has been set up to encourage companies already working in the North Sea, as well as new entrants, to approach these lands with fresh eyes and come forward with new ideas for exploration and appraisal.
Once the block has been on the Fallow Register for nine months, DTI will request a firm strategy for activity from the licence holder or from those with interest in the block. Fallow Discoveries follow a similar process. However, discoveries remain on the Fallow Register for a period of 18 months prior to a request for activity. After the requisite period on the Register, the block/discovery is relinquished and offered for sale in a subsequent licensing round. Operators must also release land information to potential buyers through the Digital Energy Atlas and Library (DEAL), which catalogues geological data related to the UK continental shelf.
As of January 2006, the Department of Trade and Industry and its partners in the PILOT initiative published a new list of fallow blocks and discoveries. This release has added 40 new fallow blocks and 23 new fallow discoveries to the list. Hannon Westwood, a UK upstream oil and gas consultancy, maintains that the direct pressure of the Fallow Initiative and a parallel marketing drive to attract new investment have together changed the ownership landscape of the UK continental shelf.
Hannon Westwood also found that the Fallow and Promote initiatives generate deals and spur drilling activity. More significantly, the consultant determined that Fallow Acreage wells traditionally outperform traditional farm-in wells, adding the highest level of reserves per well to the existing resource base.
It is generally accepted that land tenure regulations are an important factor in a jurisdiction’s overall competitiveness. However, these regulations must also serve the goals of the jurisdiction. Clearly, therefore, a balance must be struck between attracting investment and requiring timely action toward exploration and development. The UK may well serve as a useful model for cooperation between regulators and industry in the development and implementation of regulations that achieve both.
In the early months of 2006, the phrase "use it or lose it" received a great deal of attention in Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil and gas industry. The idea that offshore licences should be relinquished if the holders have not worked them for a given period has been debated, off and on, over the past three decades. More recently, "fallow acreage" or "fallow field" regulations were raised during the consultation on Newfoundland and Labrador’s soon-to-be-finalized energy plan: stakeholders on all sides of the equation weighed in on the potential impacts of changing land tenure regulations. However, the concept shifted rapidly from theoretical to practical when it emerged in the public arena after Hebron negotiations were suspended.
From the word-smithy: The word fallow was originally a farming term, applied to land that was left unseeded for a season or more to allow it to build up nutrients and regain productivity. It is now applied to a variety of resources or markets that are inactive or undeveloped but potentially useful.The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador stated in its energy plan discussion paper Paper (released November 2005) that the consultation process would address, among other things, land tenure issues - including the apparent use of the Significant Discovery Licence to "warehouse" acreage with at least a show of hydrocarbons in virtual perpetuity. This discussion was intended to explore alternatives to the current system, with the ultimate objective of encouraging more timely petroleum development.
In the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore jurisdiction, once a significant discovery licence has been issued, it continues to be in force as long as the associated declaration is in force. The Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB) can, under defined circumstances predominantly related to the need for national security of supply, order that a well be drilled on a portion of a significant discovery area [SDA] (Section 75 of the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act). Additionally, under Section 148 of the same legislation the CNLOPB can order commencement of production, when the chief conservation officer is of the opinion that the capability exists to do so and that not doing so will in some way allow the asset to waste. However, this instrument has been criticized as difficult to apply under an argument of commercial wastage, unnecessarily blunt and potentially counterproductive. Most importantly, an attempt to encourage activity in this way would in all probability heighten this jurisdiction’s current reputation as excessively proscriptive.
The good news is that some of the issues inherent in the current licensing system are being addressed, and more responsive regulatory instruments are being developed.
The 2006 Newfoundland and Labrador call for bids, for example, contained provisions for rentals during the term of an exploration licence [EL] awarded in that bid process and during the term of any resulting significant discovery licence [SDL]. The rates escalate, depending on how long the licence is held, however, rental paid can be credited to allowable expenditure.
During the province’s energy plan consultation, another SDL-related issue was raised by several stakeholders, including NOIA. Phonse Fagan, a St. John’s-based petroleum consultant, stated the case succinctly: “Ultimately the oil company should be required to prove that oil/gas can flow to the surface at rates that have some potential to be economic before a significant discovery licence is issued.” Under the current system, non-commercial discoveries can be held in perpetuity without a requirement for further testing to fully explore their potential. As a result, Newfoundland and Labrador is home to twelve significant discoveries containing fewer than 40 million barrels of oil and eight containing fewer than 0.5 trillion cubic feet of gas – well below the commercial threshold for this environment today, much less two decades ago when they were awarded.
The core licensing objectives - driving development without hindering competitiveness, identifying the full potential of a discovery and encouraging commitment to development - must all be addressed in order to establish a regime that is both competitive and sustainable. To a large degree, these issues have been addressed by the United Kingdom’s Fallow Initiative, which has received international attention for its positive affect on exploration rates on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
The UK’s Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) initiated the fallow acreage process in 2002 as a way to drive activity in inactive older licences. The oldest inactive licences had an initial term of 6 years with a second term lasting as long as 40 years and often covering multiple blocks. Under these terms, licences issued in the UK’s first offshore call for bids do not expire until 2010.
It is important to understand that although retroactive, the application of fallow field legislation in the United Kingdom is a cooperative process. As part of Promote UK, a joint initiative of DTI and the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA) designed to attract new entrants, the Fallow Initiative is supported by a range of tools enabling market awareness and access to information.
Initially, fallow blocks and discoveries are identified in discussion with the operator and other licensees. The process then classifies these areas as either Class A (blocks with a recent change of ownership or technical barrier) or Class B (blocks with an identified misalignment of interests). For Class B blocks, a formal invitation is issued to the licence holder for an activity report to take the block out of fallow. If there is no progress, the block is placed on the LIFT (Licence Information for Trading) Fallow Register. The Fallow Register has been set up to encourage companies already working in the North Sea, as well as new entrants, to approach these lands with fresh eyes and come forward with new ideas for exploration and appraisal.
Once the block has been on the Fallow Register for nine months, DTI will request a firm strategy for activity from the licence holder or from those with interest in the block. Fallow Discoveries follow a similar process. However, discoveries remain on the Fallow Register for a period of 18 months prior to a request for activity. After the requisite period on the Register, the block/discovery is relinquished and offered for sale in a subsequent licensing round. Operators must also release land information to potential buyers through the Digital Energy Atlas and Library (DEAL), which catalogues geological data related to the UK continental shelf.
As of January 2006, the Department of Trade and Industry and its partners in the PILOT initiative published a new list of fallow blocks and discoveries. This release has added 40 new fallow blocks and 23 new fallow discoveries to the list. Hannon Westwood, a UK upstream oil and gas consultancy, maintains that the direct pressure of the Fallow Initiative and a parallel marketing drive to attract new investment have together changed the ownership landscape of the UK continental shelf.
Hannon Westwood also found that the Fallow and Promote initiatives generate deals and spur drilling activity. More significantly, the consultant determined that Fallow Acreage wells traditionally outperform traditional farm-in wells, adding the highest level of reserves per well to the existing resource base.
It is generally accepted that land tenure regulations are an important factor in a jurisdiction’s overall competitiveness. However, these regulations must also serve the goals of the jurisdiction. Clearly, therefore, a balance must be struck between attracting investment and requiring timely action toward exploration and development. The UK may well serve as a useful model for cooperation between regulators and industry in the development and implementation of regulations that achieve both.
On the fifth anniversary
It is well with my soul
Music: Philip Bliss, 1876
When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,Words: Horatio Spafford, 1873
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Music: Philip Bliss, 1876
10 September 2006
Hitting a nerve
Some New Democrat supporters took offence at an earlier post, "Dipocrits".
One sent an e-mail, under a pseudonym and attacking me personally. Nice to see substance in a discussion.
Another posted to his own blog and started out by calling me a right-wing dweeb.
Again an argument of substance.
Let's make it clear: Canada's mission in Afghanistan includes suppressing the armed elements - Taliban, drug lords and anyone else - in order to create an environment where Afghans can peacefully determine their own future, for themselves. It always has.
Canada's mission includes reconstruction. It is an essential component of the NATO force approach and has been since Canadian troops first arrived in Afghanistan.
The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of those who would have our country withdraw from Afghanistan now is best displayed by arguments such as those put forward by La revue gauche among others. But beyond the ad hominem swipes and inaccurate information, there is simply nothing else in the post you will find by following that link.
If New Democrats can possibly offer something of substance as an alternative to Canada's current policy in Afghanistan, then let's engage in a discussion.
But if the best the New Democrats and others on the political left can come up with is a withdrawal of our soldiers who are there to establish the peaceful basis on which reconstruction and reconciliation can take place, then they are offering nothing - absolutely nothing - that deserves serious consideration. It would appear their philosophy is that when the going gets tough, Canada should go home and hector everyone else from the sidelines.
The accuracy of the earlier assessment is only confirmed by the personal attacks that resulted from it.
One sent an e-mail, under a pseudonym and attacking me personally. Nice to see substance in a discussion.
Another posted to his own blog and started out by calling me a right-wing dweeb.
Again an argument of substance.
Let's make it clear: Canada's mission in Afghanistan includes suppressing the armed elements - Taliban, drug lords and anyone else - in order to create an environment where Afghans can peacefully determine their own future, for themselves. It always has.
Canada's mission includes reconstruction. It is an essential component of the NATO force approach and has been since Canadian troops first arrived in Afghanistan.
The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of those who would have our country withdraw from Afghanistan now is best displayed by arguments such as those put forward by La revue gauche among others. But beyond the ad hominem swipes and inaccurate information, there is simply nothing else in the post you will find by following that link.
If New Democrats can possibly offer something of substance as an alternative to Canada's current policy in Afghanistan, then let's engage in a discussion.
But if the best the New Democrats and others on the political left can come up with is a withdrawal of our soldiers who are there to establish the peaceful basis on which reconstruction and reconciliation can take place, then they are offering nothing - absolutely nothing - that deserves serious consideration. It would appear their philosophy is that when the going gets tough, Canada should go home and hector everyone else from the sidelines.
The accuracy of the earlier assessment is only confirmed by the personal attacks that resulted from it.
Dipocrits
Newly-minted provincial New Democrat leader Lorraine Michael thinks Canadian soldiers should withdraw from Afghanistan.
She joined the overwhelming majority of her Dipper colleagues on the weekend in voting for an unceremonious retreat by Canadians from Afghanistan as soon as the flights can be booked.
Just not on Canjet.
And what of the people of Afghanistan?
Shag the wogs, the Dippers say implicitly.
And what of Canadian interests and values?
We are expressing Canadian Dipper values which always place anti-American tirades above everything else likely comes the reply. I mean God forbid we should do something in the world besides talk about the need for other people to do something.
And when the Taliban come back to power and make it a crime to teach girls and young women anything, including how to read?
or when women are beheaded or shot in a public spectacle for the alleged crime of adultery?
That sound you hear will be the wind whistling through the canyon of Dipper moral posturing.
Some of us remember the old hypocrisy very well as it rears its head once more.
If I had a rocket launcher, indeed.
Bloody Dipocrits.
She joined the overwhelming majority of her Dipper colleagues on the weekend in voting for an unceremonious retreat by Canadians from Afghanistan as soon as the flights can be booked.
Just not on Canjet.
And what of the people of Afghanistan?
Shag the wogs, the Dippers say implicitly.
And what of Canadian interests and values?
We are expressing Canadian Dipper values which always place anti-American tirades above everything else likely comes the reply. I mean God forbid we should do something in the world besides talk about the need for other people to do something.
And when the Taliban come back to power and make it a crime to teach girls and young women anything, including how to read?
or when women are beheaded or shot in a public spectacle for the alleged crime of adultery?
That sound you hear will be the wind whistling through the canyon of Dipper moral posturing.
Some of us remember the old hypocrisy very well as it rears its head once more.
If I had a rocket launcher, indeed.
Bloody Dipocrits.
09 September 2006
A piece of the action...
Leave it to Danny Williams [left, meeting with reporters] to link a dispute with the federal government to the anniversary of one of the biggest franchises in entertainment history.In the same week Star Trek fans marked the 40th anniversary of the first episode Danny Williams said:
"Now I find that disgusting, disgraceful and shameful, quite honestly, when a federal government will not stand behind a member of the federation, a province," Williams fumed. [Emphasis added]That explains it all.
Newfoundland and Labrador is a member of the Federation. It all starts to make sense now.
Williams - or should we say The Boss - is just looking to get "A piece of the action."
My question is: If we are members of the Federation now, what planet is this guy from?
Danny's dementia and Rowe's rants
From the Canadian Press version of a scrum yesterday comes little more than another occasion for Premier Danny Williams to repeat his cute little sound bite about the Prime Minister being a big buddy of Big Oil.
That's really the only substance in the set of comments.
A pre-planned little quip that someone in the Premier's publicity department likely spent a bit of timing inventing.
Communications Lite.
More cuteness, less filling.
It's the kind of stuff you'd expect from Paris Hilton, say or the publicist for some other vacuous tabloid tarnisher who is famous for, well, being famous. It's the kind of mental flatulence politicians - even most Newfoundland politicians - aren't known for.
Nope, lonely turbot fingernails are decidedly rare in the political rhetoric of a place where verbal ability is a keen indicator of intellectual capacity. The real joke in the Nissan Bonavista spot is that they had to put in subtitles so the mainlanders could keep track of the fast talk and obvious mental dexterity of the salesman. Consider him a modern day version of the guy jumping up and down on the manhole cover on Yonge Street and yelling "87!".
but I digress.
Toward the end of the CP piece is this quote from the Premier on how things might have been better back in April had Stephen Harper been involved:
Heck, Danny Williams only a short while ago was strutting around talking about being masters of ourdomain destiny and boasting of going it alone.
So, under the powers wrestled from Ottawa by Peckford, Danny Williams was locked into a mano-a-mano set of negotiations with Big Oil. He was doing what he claims to do best: negotiate toughly with Big Oil and others like it.
But now, Danny Williams claims that, what? He isn't a Great Negotiator? He is incapable of going it alone? He needs his Big Brother to back him up?
The thing about the line quoted above is that it is true. But it is true if the "he" is Danny Williams and not Steve Harper.
More importantly, though, what we see here is yet another example of Danny Williams trying to divert attention from the main issue - how he will get Hebron back on track using his own super powers - by picking a fight with Ottawa that really isn't a fight at all. What's worse, if Harper were to act on Williams' supposed desires, we would see Danny Williams with less revenue from the offshore than he gets or wants to get and considerably less control over development than he currently enjoys but denigrates and squanders.
Every provincial government - irrespective of political stripe - since 1985 has used the power flowing from the real Atlantic Accord to our collective benefit. If we took Williams at face value, we'd believe he was planning to toss it all aside.
But if we've learned anything, we've learned that the Premier's publicity department is good at the quips but not much else.
in the meantime, Williams is aided in his superficial political communications by a bevy of supporters, some organized, some apparently not. Like Bill Rowe, Williams' former personal envoy to Hy's and currently the host of an afternoon call-in show on the province's largest commercial radio broadcaster.
Rowe took exception to one caller yesterday and launched into an unwarranted personal attack on the caller who dared note - as we have noted - the shortcomings of the premier's position. Rowe's own biases, which are both personal and partisan, are becoming increasingly more obvious as we get closer to election time.
But like his former boss, Rowe tosses aside facts in favour of invention. For example, Rowe should know full-well that Clyde Wells' remarks were about the Hibernia deal, not the Atlantic Accord. But facts - including things Rowe himself participated in - are irrelevant. Rowe seems to model himself after television talk-show host Stephen Colbert , without grasping that Colbert is a parody .
So between a Premier who talks in hollow sound bites, renders observations about himself but attributes them to others and a radio call-in host who thinks wikiality is a viable basis for intelligent society, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are left wondering one thing:
When will Danny be hopping on couches?
That's really the only substance in the set of comments.
A pre-planned little quip that someone in the Premier's publicity department likely spent a bit of timing inventing.
Communications Lite.
More cuteness, less filling.
It's the kind of stuff you'd expect from Paris Hilton, say or the publicist for some other vacuous tabloid tarnisher who is famous for, well, being famous. It's the kind of mental flatulence politicians - even most Newfoundland politicians - aren't known for.
Nope, lonely turbot fingernails are decidedly rare in the political rhetoric of a place where verbal ability is a keen indicator of intellectual capacity. The real joke in the Nissan Bonavista spot is that they had to put in subtitles so the mainlanders could keep track of the fast talk and obvious mental dexterity of the salesman. Consider him a modern day version of the guy jumping up and down on the manhole cover on Yonge Street and yelling "87!".
but I digress.
Toward the end of the CP piece is this quote from the Premier on how things might have been better back in April had Stephen Harper been involved:
The reality is that if he [Prime Minister Stephen Harper] could actually reachEvery Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador since Confederation has feverishly worked to keep the federal government's hands off what areas of provincial jurisdiction. Brian Peckford waged political war on Ottawa for almost a decade over just such an issue and offshore oil and gas before he lost in court and then secured the historic Atlantic Accord (1985).
a deal with these companies himself and deal with a lot of these things,
(Hebron) would be back on the rails.
Heck, Danny Williams only a short while ago was strutting around talking about being masters of our
So, under the powers wrestled from Ottawa by Peckford, Danny Williams was locked into a mano-a-mano set of negotiations with Big Oil. He was doing what he claims to do best: negotiate toughly with Big Oil and others like it.
But now, Danny Williams claims that, what? He isn't a Great Negotiator? He is incapable of going it alone? He needs his Big Brother to back him up?
The thing about the line quoted above is that it is true. But it is true if the "he" is Danny Williams and not Steve Harper.
More importantly, though, what we see here is yet another example of Danny Williams trying to divert attention from the main issue - how he will get Hebron back on track using his own super powers - by picking a fight with Ottawa that really isn't a fight at all. What's worse, if Harper were to act on Williams' supposed desires, we would see Danny Williams with less revenue from the offshore than he gets or wants to get and considerably less control over development than he currently enjoys but denigrates and squanders.
Every provincial government - irrespective of political stripe - since 1985 has used the power flowing from the real Atlantic Accord to our collective benefit. If we took Williams at face value, we'd believe he was planning to toss it all aside.
But if we've learned anything, we've learned that the Premier's publicity department is good at the quips but not much else.
in the meantime, Williams is aided in his superficial political communications by a bevy of supporters, some organized, some apparently not. Like Bill Rowe, Williams' former personal envoy to Hy's and currently the host of an afternoon call-in show on the province's largest commercial radio broadcaster.
Rowe took exception to one caller yesterday and launched into an unwarranted personal attack on the caller who dared note - as we have noted - the shortcomings of the premier's position. Rowe's own biases, which are both personal and partisan, are becoming increasingly more obvious as we get closer to election time.
But like his former boss, Rowe tosses aside facts in favour of invention. For example, Rowe should know full-well that Clyde Wells' remarks were about the Hibernia deal, not the Atlantic Accord. But facts - including things Rowe himself participated in - are irrelevant. Rowe seems to model himself after television talk-show host Stephen Colbert , without grasping that Colbert is a parody .
So between a Premier who talks in hollow sound bites, renders observations about himself but attributes them to others and a radio call-in host who thinks wikiality is a viable basis for intelligent society, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are left wondering one thing:
When will Danny be hopping on couches?
Whips and chains and gags? Oh my!
We are far from done with the virals.
Oooooh. No.
Now we come to a spot released on the Internet in January to support a campaign by Friends of the Earth in the United Kingdom. While it has never appeared on television, the spot is hardly very racy by European standards. In North America, we'd likely have a hard time getting this on cable.
Many of you will have seen it already but for those that haven't, it features humour, sex, titillation and the tension from an anticipated conflict. It's the sort of top notch production you expect from an agency like CHI. Incidentally, if you are interested in seeing other samples of their work, check them out at chiadvertising.com.
While this spot plays on sex scandals among British politicians, the spot has an appeal that is universal, at least in the English-speaking world.
Oooooh. No.
Now we come to a spot released on the Internet in January to support a campaign by Friends of the Earth in the United Kingdom. While it has never appeared on television, the spot is hardly very racy by European standards. In North America, we'd likely have a hard time getting this on cable.
Many of you will have seen it already but for those that haven't, it features humour, sex, titillation and the tension from an anticipated conflict. It's the sort of top notch production you expect from an agency like CHI. Incidentally, if you are interested in seeing other samples of their work, check them out at chiadvertising.com.
While this spot plays on sex scandals among British politicians, the spot has an appeal that is universal, at least in the English-speaking world.
08 September 2006
Viral Friday
Yes, Virginia, it's more viral advertising.
To be effective, virals should be funny, simple and edgy to the point some times of being offensive to the more sensitive members of the community. They grab you, hold you and then deliver the message right at the end. The very best cross over language and cultural barriers.
Think of them as electronic limericks. Healey Willan, noted Canadian church organist, composer and limerick aficionado one said there are three types of limericks:
Limericks for women and children.
Limericks for the clergy.
and
Limericks.
Virals would fall into that third category. Sort of like "There once was a man from Nantucket..." but with pictures.
Here are two more virals that meet the requirements for damned good advertising let alone viral spots.
Car versus animals: The first is from the famous Ford Sportka series. These depict the sassy little car dealing with some of a car's well-known adversaries, like birds and cats. In the bird version, a feathered bomber swoops close to a Sportka only to be swatted by the car's bonnet in an act of self-defence.
The cat one is another story. See for yourself just how edgy this stuff can get. Cat lovers, beware this thing will insult your sensibilities just a tad.
But you won't forget the spot - and the car name - any more than you could ignore The Far Side's "Cat Fud" panel.
Car versus looney: As you recover from that one, try a classic spot from Volkswagen promoting it's new Polo.
No set-up required.
To be effective, virals should be funny, simple and edgy to the point some times of being offensive to the more sensitive members of the community. They grab you, hold you and then deliver the message right at the end. The very best cross over language and cultural barriers.
Think of them as electronic limericks. Healey Willan, noted Canadian church organist, composer and limerick aficionado one said there are three types of limericks:
Limericks for women and children.
Limericks for the clergy.
and
Limericks.
Virals would fall into that third category. Sort of like "There once was a man from Nantucket..." but with pictures.
Here are two more virals that meet the requirements for damned good advertising let alone viral spots.
Car versus animals: The first is from the famous Ford Sportka series. These depict the sassy little car dealing with some of a car's well-known adversaries, like birds and cats. In the bird version, a feathered bomber swoops close to a Sportka only to be swatted by the car's bonnet in an act of self-defence.
The cat one is another story. See for yourself just how edgy this stuff can get. Cat lovers, beware this thing will insult your sensibilities just a tad.
But you won't forget the spot - and the car name - any more than you could ignore The Far Side's "Cat Fud" panel.
Car versus looney: As you recover from that one, try a classic spot from Volkswagen promoting it's new Polo.
No set-up required.
Danny is afraid of Steve Harper
You heard it right.
Danny Williams is a wuss.
The great fighter, the fearless scrapper who promised only a few weeks ago to attack relentlessly anyone - anyone - who dared go against the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador is giving up on the Prime Minister.
And to make it worse he is giving up without a fight.
Not even a harsh word.
Just a few pouty-lipped comments.
From CBC News this September Friday, based on an interview from the St. John's Morning Show:
There were some other choice comments in the whole interview that are likely to leave more than a few people mystified at the difference between what Danny says at one point and what he says five seconds later.
Danny Williams is a wuss.
The great fighter, the fearless scrapper who promised only a few weeks ago to attack relentlessly anyone - anyone - who dared go against the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador is giving up on the Prime Minister.
And to make it worse he is giving up without a fight.
Not even a harsh word.
Just a few pouty-lipped comments.
From CBC News this September Friday, based on an interview from the St. John's Morning Show:
Williams, who dragged former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin into a public battle over the Atlantic Accord and offshore royalties, said he is not heading for a showdown with Harper.
"The fact that the prime minister is not supporting me on the whole fallow field exercise and legislation, the only explanation I can see is obviously he's a supporter of big oil," Williams said.
"And if he wants to be a big buddy to big oil, that's for him to decide."
There were some other choice comments in the whole interview that are likely to leave more than a few people mystified at the difference between what Danny says at one point and what he says five seconds later.
Bonavista viral
We've mentioned viral marketing a couple of times on Bond Papers.
It's a relatively new phenomenon that uses the Internet as a way of spreading advertising cheaply and effectively.
There are some famous virals and others that should be famous; like the one featuring NTV's own Glen Carter from his days out west.
Thanks to youtube.com, we can finally show you Carter's acting debut in a hysterical spot for Faberge. Notice that unlike typical television advertising, this one runs about two and a half minutes. That's news story length. Carter is priceless here since he portrays what he is: a professional reporter. No actor can match it and from what we understand, Carter landed the job when he wasn't working as a reporter and after the marketing company had interviewed dozens of actors, all of whom bombed.
The new Nissan spot for their Bonavista edition of the popular X-Trail is shorter than Carter's piece. It's got some humour in it and, contrary to some of the commentaries going around, it isn't something we should be getting our ethnic sensitivities in a knot over. To the contrary, this spot, and the fact Nissan named its premium edition of the X-Trail after a locale in Newfoundland, makes it plain that there is some nouveau chic aspect to the province that will likely stand us in good stead.
The only thing I'd point out is that the actor here is not really very authentic. The perfect character to use here - and the perfect accent and dialect - would have been Kevin Blackmore, the famous Buddy Wasisname.
Kevin likely wouldn't have done the spot, but the dialogue could have been written to match his style and the delivery could have been done with an actor able to deliver a Buddy-esque performance. Check out the script for a routine Kevin, Ray and Wayne do, called Newfunese, and you'll get the idea.
It's a relatively new phenomenon that uses the Internet as a way of spreading advertising cheaply and effectively.
There are some famous virals and others that should be famous; like the one featuring NTV's own Glen Carter from his days out west.
Thanks to youtube.com, we can finally show you Carter's acting debut in a hysterical spot for Faberge. Notice that unlike typical television advertising, this one runs about two and a half minutes. That's news story length. Carter is priceless here since he portrays what he is: a professional reporter. No actor can match it and from what we understand, Carter landed the job when he wasn't working as a reporter and after the marketing company had interviewed dozens of actors, all of whom bombed.
The new Nissan spot for their Bonavista edition of the popular X-Trail is shorter than Carter's piece. It's got some humour in it and, contrary to some of the commentaries going around, it isn't something we should be getting our ethnic sensitivities in a knot over. To the contrary, this spot, and the fact Nissan named its premium edition of the X-Trail after a locale in Newfoundland, makes it plain that there is some nouveau chic aspect to the province that will likely stand us in good stead.
The only thing I'd point out is that the actor here is not really very authentic. The perfect character to use here - and the perfect accent and dialect - would have been Kevin Blackmore, the famous Buddy Wasisname.
Kevin likely wouldn't have done the spot, but the dialogue could have been written to match his style and the delivery could have been done with an actor able to deliver a Buddy-esque performance. Check out the script for a routine Kevin, Ray and Wayne do, called Newfunese, and you'll get the idea.
07 September 2006
Comparative oil and gas revenue statistics
Newfoundland and Labrador (2005)
Total oil production: 111,300,000 barrels
Total royalty: $491,526,000
Royalty per barrel: $4.42 [Source: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador]
Alberta (2005)
Total oil production: 219, 000, 000 barrels
Total royalty: $1,447,000,000
Royalty per barrel: $6.62 [Source: Government of Alberta]
Oil sands royalty per barrel: $1.74 per barrel equivalent [Source: Pembina Institute]
Notes:
1. Alberta's oil fields are mature, well-developed assets. The provincial government's royalty structure reflects the maturity of the fields, applying different rates of royalty depending, among other things, on the age of the field.
2. Alberta's 2005 total estimated revenue from oil, natural gas and oil sands was approximately $14 billion. Natural gas represented the largest portion of that amount at approximately $8.0 billion.
3. Alberta produced approximately 5.0 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas in 2005. Newfoundland and Labrador's entire natural gas reserves (proven and probable) is approximately 10 tcf.
4. Newfoundland and Labrador's three offshore fields provide revenues based on negotiated royalty agreements. Each agreement provides relatively low royalty to the province until the project development costs are recovered.
5. The Terra Nova project achieved pay-out in 2006. As a result, provincial royalties from that project will be 30% on each barrel of oil. As a consequence, the provincial royalty per barrel (as shown above) will increase substantially as projects move to higher royalties.
6. Memorial University economist Wade Locke noted for NOIA's 2006 conference that the provincial royalties are "profit-sensitive and increase dramatically with the price of oil".
7. Locke also noted that the federal and provincial governments receive more than 50% of the net cash flow from existing offshore production over the life of the projects:
NCF share, by project
Hibernia
Companies: 49%
Province: 27%
Federal: 24%
Terra Nova
Companies: 45%
Province: 40%
Federal: 15%
White Rose
Companies: 46%
Province: 40%
Federal: 14%
8. Hebron was estimated to provide between $8.0 and $10.0 billion revenue to the provincial government over the life of the project. This estimate was based solely on development of the Hebron field with its estimated 500 million barrels of oil. Development of two associated fields - Ben Nevis and West Ben Nevis - would add 250 million barrels of oil to that amount. As a result - and since those fields would likely be brought on stream after project payout - the revenue for the provincial government resulting from Hebron development under the tentative agreement reached in January 2006 would have been substantially increased.
The Hebron estimate did not include development spending, the major portion of which would have taken place in Newfoundland and Labrador.
9. The "equity position" demanded by the provincial government would have provided $1.5 billion in total additional revenue over the life of the Hebron portion of the project. [Source: Premier Danny Williams, comments in House of Assembly]
Total oil production: 111,300,000 barrels
Total royalty: $491,526,000
Royalty per barrel: $4.42 [Source: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador]
Alberta (2005)
Total oil production: 219, 000, 000 barrels
Total royalty: $1,447,000,000
Royalty per barrel: $6.62 [Source: Government of Alberta]
Oil sands royalty per barrel: $1.74 per barrel equivalent [Source: Pembina Institute]
Notes:
1. Alberta's oil fields are mature, well-developed assets. The provincial government's royalty structure reflects the maturity of the fields, applying different rates of royalty depending, among other things, on the age of the field.
2. Alberta's 2005 total estimated revenue from oil, natural gas and oil sands was approximately $14 billion. Natural gas represented the largest portion of that amount at approximately $8.0 billion.
3. Alberta produced approximately 5.0 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas in 2005. Newfoundland and Labrador's entire natural gas reserves (proven and probable) is approximately 10 tcf.
4. Newfoundland and Labrador's three offshore fields provide revenues based on negotiated royalty agreements. Each agreement provides relatively low royalty to the province until the project development costs are recovered.
5. The Terra Nova project achieved pay-out in 2006. As a result, provincial royalties from that project will be 30% on each barrel of oil. As a consequence, the provincial royalty per barrel (as shown above) will increase substantially as projects move to higher royalties.
6. Memorial University economist Wade Locke noted for NOIA's 2006 conference that the provincial royalties are "profit-sensitive and increase dramatically with the price of oil".
7. Locke also noted that the federal and provincial governments receive more than 50% of the net cash flow from existing offshore production over the life of the projects:
NCF share, by project
Hibernia
Companies: 49%
Province: 27%
Federal: 24%
Terra Nova
Companies: 45%
Province: 40%
Federal: 15%
White Rose
Companies: 46%
Province: 40%
Federal: 14%
8. Hebron was estimated to provide between $8.0 and $10.0 billion revenue to the provincial government over the life of the project. This estimate was based solely on development of the Hebron field with its estimated 500 million barrels of oil. Development of two associated fields - Ben Nevis and West Ben Nevis - would add 250 million barrels of oil to that amount. As a result - and since those fields would likely be brought on stream after project payout - the revenue for the provincial government resulting from Hebron development under the tentative agreement reached in January 2006 would have been substantially increased.
The Hebron estimate did not include development spending, the major portion of which would have taken place in Newfoundland and Labrador.
9. The "equity position" demanded by the provincial government would have provided $1.5 billion in total additional revenue over the life of the Hebron portion of the project. [Source: Premier Danny Williams, comments in House of Assembly]
10. Under the Atlantic Accord (1985), the provincial government establishes its own revenue/royalty regime as if the resources were on land and therefore under the legislative jurisdiction of the province. There is NO requirement that the royalties and other taxation be approved by the federal government.
Clause 37 provides that the province can establish:
- royalties;
- a corporate sales tax that is the same as the taxation applied to all companies within the province;
- a sales tax as generally prevails in the province;
- bonus payments;
- rentals and license fees; and,
- other forms of resource revenue or taxation that may be applicable and that are generally applied to industries.
06 September 2006
Ignorance IS Bliss!
Wonder why Andy Wells has a hate on for Heavenly Creatures, a small, inconspicuous group that looks after pets no one wants?
Here's a theory.
He had a chat with Debbie Powers or someone else from the SPCA a while ago.
Without doing much other than check a few stats with the City's animal welfare people, he decided to lace into Heavenly Creatures with the full might of his "research" and the ever-present Andy sharp tongue.
Wells has never needed a reason to go off half-cocked before or sometimes completely cocked-up before but the similarity between his comments and those of SPCA head Debbie Powers a few days ago are just a little too close for comfort.
As a result of this whole thing, a tiny - and almost completely insignificant - little turf and image war some people seem to be waging with a very tiny circle of people in the East End of St. John's has blown up into another "scandal" with Wells at the centre of it.
Wanna check it out? Someone ask Andy when he spoke to Debbie about this matter: specific dates. There's a looney riding on the likelihood Wells spoke to Powers or someone else from SPCA shortly before he went bizarrely ballistic on Heavenly Creatures.
Either than or he just feels that the name draws negative attention to the unheavenly creatures council usually votes in some of its resolutions.
Oh yeah: and Danny thinks Andy Wells has the judgment to be responsible for the province's oil and gas resources.
Here's a theory.
He had a chat with Debbie Powers or someone else from the SPCA a while ago.
Without doing much other than check a few stats with the City's animal welfare people, he decided to lace into Heavenly Creatures with the full might of his "research" and the ever-present Andy sharp tongue.
Wells has never needed a reason to go off half-cocked before or sometimes completely cocked
As a result of this whole thing, a tiny - and almost completely insignificant - little turf and image war some people seem to be waging with a very tiny circle of people in the East End of St. John's has blown up into another "scandal" with Wells at the centre of it.
Wanna check it out? Someone ask Andy when he spoke to Debbie about this matter: specific dates. There's a looney riding on the likelihood Wells spoke to Powers or someone else from SPCA shortly before he went bizarrely ballistic on Heavenly Creatures.
Either than or he just feels that the name draws negative attention to the unheavenly creatures council usually votes in some of its resolutions.
Oh yeah: and Danny thinks Andy Wells has the judgment to be responsible for the province's oil and gas resources.
05 September 2006
The Premier's selective perception
Fresh from his trip to Iceland and Norway, Premier Danny Williams issued a statement today claiming he learned many valuable lessons.
The Norwegian companies - Statoil and Norsk Hydro - not Crown monopolies even though Danny Williams told VOCM's Bill Rowe on Monday that Statoil is 100% owned by the government of Norway. They operate at arms length from the Norwegian government and basically operate like a private sector company. If they have a stake in the oil business, they earned as in worked for it and paid for it.
Williams' approach with Hydro Corporation is to force his way into the business with a corporation that has exactly zilch in the experience department. He doesn't seem to want to do as the Norwegians did and learn from the ground up. He wants to start at the top and that is, to put it mildly, impossible.
As for the Premier's claims about Norwegian fallow-field legislation, he should understand the difference between the North Sea and the local offshore. The problem with Hebron, for example, was not that commercially viable field sat in the ground since the time it was discovered. Note that Williams exaggerates the time frame as part of his typical exaggeration and sometimes blatant misrepresentation. When it was first discovered,Hebron was declared commercially not viable.
It only sits undeveloped today because he couldn't reach an agreement with the oil companies on the project. No one - that's right - no party is willfully holding up Hebron development - unless we include Danny Williams in the calculation. Not only does fallow-field not apply in this instance, or indeed in most instances in the local offshore, applying any legal force to the Hebron companies would likely result in very costly lawsuits the Premier would ultimately lose and which the taxpayers of this province would ultimately pay for in spades.
What Hebron needs to get underway is not legal muscle for Danny Williams but business acumen and negotiating skill.
As for gas fields that lie fallow, the issue has been studied for some time. If Danny Williams wants to encourage gas development he could issue a gas royalty regime that has been sitting in the natural resources department largely unaddressed since before he came into office.
That just brings us back to the bigger part of Williams' comments on Norway, namely the taxation regime. Norway takes revenue from its offshore based on a number of factors not the least of which is the fact that the total local offshore could fit into a tiny corner of Norway's reserves. Bigger assets give Norway clout in the marketplace. But even if there were sizeable resources offshore this place, Danny Williams knows full well that he has right now, as we speak, every single legal power to establish a taxation and royalty regime for the offshore that he thinks is the right way to go.
He doesn't have to bitch about other people doing better than we are.
He doesn't have to blame Ottawa.
If there is a problem with the provincial revenue regime, Danny Williams has the power to change it right now.
All by himself.
And the marketplace will decide if the offshore gets developed.
And that might be the problem.
Another piece of news today might us a clue as to why Williams seems to prefer blaming others and whining rather than actually doing something, why it's easier for him to talk about the rewards manana.
Chevron announced a major discovery in the Gulf of Mexico that could, according to some experts, rival the Alaska fields as the United States' largest domestic source of oil.
With that kind of competition, Danny Williams doesn't stand much of a chance of attracting any major investment to the local offshore, especially if he just keeps upping in the ante based on fantasy and misrepresentation.
When you look at what the Norwegian government has done over the years to ensure their natural resources benefit the people of Norway, I am more convinced than ever that our government's position with the oil and gas companies is reasonable and fair...When you consider the enormous taxation levels in Norway and equity participation, the fact that we are looking for a greater return on a field that has been sitting idle for 30 years is certainly realistic.So much for learning anything. For some time now the Bond Papers has been pointing out that the way Norway approached its offshore oil and gas development with state-owned enterprises is exactly, diametrically,100% the opposite of the way Danny Williams is trying to go.
The Norwegian companies - Statoil and Norsk Hydro - not Crown monopolies even though Danny Williams told VOCM's Bill Rowe on Monday that Statoil is 100% owned by the government of Norway. They operate at arms length from the Norwegian government and basically operate like a private sector company. If they have a stake in the oil business, they earned as in worked for it and paid for it.
Williams' approach with Hydro Corporation is to force his way into the business with a corporation that has exactly zilch in the experience department. He doesn't seem to want to do as the Norwegians did and learn from the ground up. He wants to start at the top and that is, to put it mildly, impossible.
As for the Premier's claims about Norwegian fallow-field legislation, he should understand the difference between the North Sea and the local offshore. The problem with Hebron, for example, was not that commercially viable field sat in the ground since the time it was discovered. Note that Williams exaggerates the time frame as part of his typical exaggeration and sometimes blatant misrepresentation. When it was first discovered,Hebron was declared commercially not viable.
It only sits undeveloped today because he couldn't reach an agreement with the oil companies on the project. No one - that's right - no party is willfully holding up Hebron development - unless we include Danny Williams in the calculation. Not only does fallow-field not apply in this instance, or indeed in most instances in the local offshore, applying any legal force to the Hebron companies would likely result in very costly lawsuits the Premier would ultimately lose and which the taxpayers of this province would ultimately pay for in spades.
What Hebron needs to get underway is not legal muscle for Danny Williams but business acumen and negotiating skill.
As for gas fields that lie fallow, the issue has been studied for some time. If Danny Williams wants to encourage gas development he could issue a gas royalty regime that has been sitting in the natural resources department largely unaddressed since before he came into office.
That just brings us back to the bigger part of Williams' comments on Norway, namely the taxation regime. Norway takes revenue from its offshore based on a number of factors not the least of which is the fact that the total local offshore could fit into a tiny corner of Norway's reserves. Bigger assets give Norway clout in the marketplace. But even if there were sizeable resources offshore this place, Danny Williams knows full well that he has right now, as we speak, every single legal power to establish a taxation and royalty regime for the offshore that he thinks is the right way to go.
He doesn't have to bitch about other people doing better than we are.
He doesn't have to blame Ottawa.
If there is a problem with the provincial revenue regime, Danny Williams has the power to change it right now.
All by himself.
And the marketplace will decide if the offshore gets developed.
And that might be the problem.
Another piece of news today might us a clue as to why Williams seems to prefer blaming others and whining rather than actually doing something, why it's easier for him to talk about the rewards manana.
Chevron announced a major discovery in the Gulf of Mexico that could, according to some experts, rival the Alaska fields as the United States' largest domestic source of oil.
With that kind of competition, Danny Williams doesn't stand much of a chance of attracting any major investment to the local offshore, especially if he just keeps upping in the ante based on fantasy and misrepresentation.
Political lobbying trying to reconcile Gulf drilling bills
Lobbyists are hard at work trying to reconcile to bills passed recently by the United States Senate and House of Representatives that would open significant oil and gas reserves to development.
Businessweek online reports that industry watchers are adopting a waiting posture to see if the political issues in the bills will ultimately kill the initiatives.
Businessweek online reports that industry watchers are adopting a waiting posture to see if the political issues in the bills will ultimately kill the initiatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)