The project has now been referred to other regulatory authorities for further action. A project description can be found at the Nova Scotia offshore regulatory board website.
-srbp-
05 September 2007
Deep Panuke approved
The Deep Panuke gas project offshore Nova Scotia passed another hurdle today with a decision from federal environment minister John Baird that the project "is not likely to cause any adverse environmental effects."
The project has now been referred to other regulatory authorities for further action. A project description can be found at the Nova Scotia offshore regulatory board website.
The project has now been referred to other regulatory authorities for further action. A project description can be found at the Nova Scotia offshore regulatory board website.
For Number One Daughter
who started Grade Four today, who is always full of enthusiasm and energy and who, each day, makes her family prouder (none prouder than her mother who is still a bit taller than she is).
-srbp-
For Number One Son...
who started Grade Nine today, who is in no danger of failing, and who makes his family prouder every day (none prouder than his father, who is still a bit taller than he is.)
-srbp-
04 September 2007
Show me the oil money!
Here's another story on the Hebron deal from Embassy. The story discusses the recent Hebron announcement in the wider context of a policy debate in Alberta over royalty regimes.
There are some interesting comments in the story, coming from natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale.
Premier Williams made two different sets of three demands. In April 2005, he said the province was looking for two of the three of:
- better royalties (undefined);
- better local benefits; and,
- local processing.
The Premier took the refinery off the list as soon as a consortium announced they were exploring a second refinery for Placentia Bay.
A year later, the Premier had three different demands:
- better local benefits;
- a super-royalty, to kick in when oil traded above a certain price per barrel; and,
- an "equity" stake.
The super-royalty was never clearly defined; indeed, not much of the list was defined in any measurable way.
When the talks fell apart, there were essentially two issues:
1. The companies could not agree among themselves on the equity request, reduced apparently from 10% to 4.9% to avoid involving any management decision-making powers; and,
2. A request by the companies for tax concessions which the province was not willing to consider.
In the memorandum of understanding, the issues were resolved such that the companies got a royalty break in lieu of the other tax concessions. The province got two other items but the details of how those work are still secret.
That's what makes discussion of the equity stake in the context of the Embassy story a little odd. There are some references - including here at Bond - to operating a state-owned oil company as in other countries. In truth, the thing may turn out to be nothing more than shares handled by an operating company as with the Canada Hibernia Holding Company.
How the shares are handled and what the energy company turns out to be will affect the net value of the thing to the province as a whole. Notice that the minister refers to the vague concept of having a window on the industry from the standpoint of developers. It certainly isn't clear what that means and how it may benefit the province in any way at all.
There are some interesting comments in the story, coming from natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale.
"It [the first round of talks] fell off the rails around equity, super-royalties and secondary processing," Newfoundland Natural Resources Minister Kathy Dunderdale said of the negotiations in an interview Monday. "The premier [Danny Williams] said at the time we were prepared to let some things go, but not the equity or the super-royalties.Not exactly.
Premier Williams made two different sets of three demands. In April 2005, he said the province was looking for two of the three of:
- better royalties (undefined);
- better local benefits; and,
- local processing.
The Premier took the refinery off the list as soon as a consortium announced they were exploring a second refinery for Placentia Bay.
A year later, the Premier had three different demands:
- better local benefits;
- a super-royalty, to kick in when oil traded above a certain price per barrel; and,
- an "equity" stake.
The super-royalty was never clearly defined; indeed, not much of the list was defined in any measurable way.
When the talks fell apart, there were essentially two issues:
1. The companies could not agree among themselves on the equity request, reduced apparently from 10% to 4.9% to avoid involving any management decision-making powers; and,
2. A request by the companies for tax concessions which the province was not willing to consider.
In the memorandum of understanding, the issues were resolved such that the companies got a royalty break in lieu of the other tax concessions. The province got two other items but the details of how those work are still secret.
That's what makes discussion of the equity stake in the context of the Embassy story a little odd. There are some references - including here at Bond - to operating a state-owned oil company as in other countries. In truth, the thing may turn out to be nothing more than shares handled by an operating company as with the Canada Hibernia Holding Company.
How the shares are handled and what the energy company turns out to be will affect the net value of the thing to the province as a whole. Notice that the minister refers to the vague concept of having a window on the industry from the standpoint of developers. It certainly isn't clear what that means and how it may benefit the province in any way at all.
-srbp-
Start Your Own Political Party
If there's one of these, then why do we need one of these?
The New Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of labour but now someone starting a labour party.
Hmmm.
Next thing you know someone will re-start the Newfoundland and Labrador Party, which is not to be confused with the Newfoundland and Labrador First Party.
Has anyone seen the Popular People's Front for the Liberation of Judea (Officials)?
The New Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of labour but now someone starting a labour party.
Hmmm.
Next thing you know someone will re-start the Newfoundland and Labrador Party, which is not to be confused with the Newfoundland and Labrador First Party.
Has anyone seen the Popular People's Front for the Liberation of Judea (Officials)?
-srbp-
The Zen of Blogs
Wise One: What, grasshopper, is the sound made by one head repeatedly hitting the computer desk?
Grasshopper: Shagged if I know, Boss. But the head might be banging after finding a serious story about a shortage of urologists in the province linked by Dave Barry's blog in the US, with the suggestion that "Canadian Urologist Shortage" would be a good name for a band?
This one comes with a gigantic doff of the bowler to the cbc.ca webninjas who tied their sites to Technorati.
To update that story, the official position of the regional health authority is that they won't be speaking publicly about concerns raised recently by a local urologist. His concerns led to the CBC story that led ultimately to Dave's World.
Lessons?
Well, Lesson One: just about anyone will find anything funny.
Lesson Two: if you just got the living daylights hauled out of you on a health issue when your media strategy was entirely reactive and didn't say a heckuva lot, then maybe it might time to think of a new concept in public relations besides "no comment".
That second lesson isn't for the comms people invovled - it's for the management types who think silence is an effective way to disseminate information.
Grasshopper: Shagged if I know, Boss. But the head might be banging after finding a serious story about a shortage of urologists in the province linked by Dave Barry's blog in the US, with the suggestion that "Canadian Urologist Shortage" would be a good name for a band?
This one comes with a gigantic doff of the bowler to the cbc.ca webninjas who tied their sites to Technorati.
To update that story, the official position of the regional health authority is that they won't be speaking publicly about concerns raised recently by a local urologist. His concerns led to the CBC story that led ultimately to Dave's World.
Lessons?
Well, Lesson One: just about anyone will find anything funny.
Lesson Two: if you just got the living daylights hauled out of you on a health issue when your media strategy was entirely reactive and didn't say a heckuva lot, then maybe it might time to think of a new concept in public relations besides "no comment".
That second lesson isn't for the comms people invovled - it's for the management types who think silence is an effective way to disseminate information.
-srbp-
The impact of new media
Update: link to fleetstreetpr.com fixed.
New media can be used for niceness or evil, to paraphrase Maxwell Smart.
How you interpret this example from Ontario's election campaign on a "Goodness" scale depends on which partisan side you take.
The one thing everyone will agree on is that new media had an impact - an apology was issued - even if it is a transient one.
From the other side, there are examples like this one poking at John Tory's Liberal counterpart Dalton McGuinty.
New media can be used for niceness or evil, to paraphrase Maxwell Smart.
How you interpret this example from Ontario's election campaign on a "Goodness" scale depends on which partisan side you take.
The one thing everyone will agree on is that new media had an impact - an apology was issued - even if it is a transient one.
From the other side, there are examples like this one poking at John Tory's Liberal counterpart Dalton McGuinty.
-srbp-
03 September 2007
Deconfusing the royalty confusion
In Friday's National Post, Premier Danny Williams said:
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.
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.
The revenge of the Newfies?
From the current issue of L'actualite an article with a less than desirable title but an interesting set of opinions - from across the spectrum - on Newfoundland and Labrador at the start of the 21st century, looking forward.
The interviews for this piece were done several months ago, so some of it, like the bit on Hebron is a bit dated. Nonetheless, here it is. The paragraphing may be slightly off from the original but those who can read French will figure it out. Ignore the "n" word; there are other ideas in here from a variety of people that go far beyond the ethnic slur.
For those who can't read French, well there are online programs but they give a bizarre rendition. Like this bit run through babelfish which comes out sounding like Borat:
The interviews for this piece were done several months ago, so some of it, like the bit on Hebron is a bit dated. Nonetheless, here it is. The paragraphing may be slightly off from the original but those who can read French will figure it out. Ignore the "n" word; there are other ideas in here from a variety of people that go far beyond the ethnic slur.
For those who can't read French, well there are online programs but they give a bizarre rendition. Like this bit run through babelfish which comes out sounding like Borat:
Ed Hollett worked at the office of Clyde Wells at the beginning of the years 1990, when this last was a Prime Minister. Hollett is today to advise in communications and strategies with St. John's. He doesn't believe there is a Newfoundland movement. There does not believe in separatism ground-neuvien. "It is no civil company, not political party, not of movement of mass as in Quebec to support and to feed such a project."With the magic of some editing and knowing what was actually said in the interview, one comes up with something a bit more digestible:
However, Hollett sees stinging the revolution ground-neuvienne. "From here a few years, the poorest province of the country will join the club sélect those which pay equalization instead of receiving some. That will have a major effect on balance of the forces to the country which is always maintained in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle "
Hollett sees Newfoundland very well taking the head of a "Atlantic force" which will operate the rebalancing of the forces to the countries "that of which Albertains also dream, but that they were not able to precisely succeed, because they are too... insular,".
Is a new whole newfie power emerging? "Since time that the Newfoundlanders emigrate, one finds some everywhere in Canada, often at important stations, known as Ed Hollett. They will not separate, they will rather make feel their presence.
Ed Hollett worked for Clyde Wells in the early 1990s, when the latter was Premier. Hollett is today a communications and strategy advisor in St. John's. He doesn't believe there is a Newfoundland separatist movement."There is no civic society [comparable to the St. Jean Baptiste society], no political party, no mass movement as in Quebec to support and to feed such a goal."
However, Hollett sees a Newfoundland revolution. "A few years from now, the poorest province of the country will join the select group of provinces that do not receive Equalization. That will have a major effect on the balance of the forces in the country which is always maintained in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle."
Hollett sees Newfoundland heading an"Atlantic force" which will rebalance the forces to the countries "that Albertans also dream about , but that they were not able to attain exactly, because they are too... insular."Pick up the hard copy; there is always plenty to consider in L'actualite.
Is a new whole newfie power emerging? "When Newfoundlanders emigrate, one finds them everywhere in Canada, often in important positions," says Ed Hollett. "They will not separate; they will instead make their presence felt."
L'Actualité
Vol: 32 No: 14
15 Septembre 2007
p. 60
La revanche des Newfies ?
Benoît Aubin
Désormais riches de leur manne pétrolière, les Terre-Neuviens en ont marre des conditions de la fédération canadienne. Leur fougueux premier ministre reprend même le slogan "Maîtres chez nous" ! Recette pour une explosion.
Terre-Neuve, c'est loin. D'ici comme de partout. Rendu à Signal Hill, la butte qui surplombe le havre de St. John's, il est impossible d'aller plus loin sans se mouiller les pieds. C'est le point le plus à l'est de toute l'Amérique du Nord. C'est là que Marconi a capté le premier signal radio transatlantique, en 1901. À cet endroit précis, on est à la même distance des côtes de l'Irlande que du coeur de Toronto.
Le paysage est immuable, mais la politique, elle, a changé. Aujourd'hui, " bien des gens sentent que Terre-Neuve est plus près de l'Irlande ou de l'Islande que d'Ottawa ou de Toronto ", dit Jimmy, mon chauffeur de taxi.
Il se passe quelque chose à Terre-Neuve, et personne, là -bas, n'ose prédire ce qui en résultera. Le Canada semble affligé d'un nouveau Québec, d'une autre société distincte, maritime, celle-là , qui rue à son tour dans les brancards fédéraux.
Terre-Neuve deviendra-t-elle la prochaine menace séparatiste ? Ou unira-t-elle ses forces à celles de l'Alberta et du Québec pour forcer Ottawa à revoir la façon dont le pays est dirigé ? Ou encore, se retrouvera-t-elle toute seule au large, sans pétrole ni morue, sans alliés ni péréquation ? Tout, semble-t-il, dépendra de son premier ministre, Danny Williams, 58 ans, un politicien explosif, impulsif et archi-populaire chez lui.
Le diable est aux vaches. En moins de quatre ans au pouvoir, Williams, un conservateur, s'est fait des adversaires de taille dans son combat pour " l'autonomie " de sa province. Il a déclaré la guerre à son homologue fédéral, Stephen Harper. L'enjeu : une question de péréquation. Il a aussi claqué la porte aux négociations sur l'exploitation du champ pétrolifère de Hebron, compromettant le plus gros projet de Terre-Neuve pour la prochaine décennie. Pour une histoire de redevances et de participation accrue de la province à l'affaire. Et il envoie paître Hydro-Québec, menaçant de construire seul un giga-barrage sur le fleuve Churchill, au Labrador et
de faire passer les fils sous la mer plutôt qu'au Québec. Tant pis si cela retarde la mise en route du chantier.
Danny Williams, le nouvel enfant terrible de la politique canadienne, a déjà fait enlever, il y a deux ans, le drapeau du Canada de devant son parlement en guise de protestation contre Ottawa (il s'est ravisé face au tollé que cela a provoqué, surtout en Ontario et en Alberta). Ce printemps, il a promis, dans son discours du Trône, que les Terre-Neuviens seraient désormais " maîtres chez eux " ("masters of our own house ") : une allusion très nette au cri de guerre poussé par le premier ministre québécois Jean Lesage durant la Révolution tranquille.
" Culturellement, les gens d'ici se sentent tellement différents des autres Canadiens. C'est là -dessus qu'on rejoint très bien les Québécois ", dit l'ancienne religieuse Lorraine Michael, aujourd'hui seule députée NPD du Parlement provincial. " En ce moment, il n'y a pas, à mon avis, de majorité en faveur de la rupture avec le Canada. Mais il existe néanmoins un sentiment nationaliste très puissant, et Danny en joue comme un virtuose. "
Si vous voyez une spectaculaire Dodge Viper ou une grosse Bentley rouler un soir dans Water Street, dans le centre de St. John's, vous savez que Danny sort en ville. Le premier ministre, l'un des hommes les plus riches de la province, possède une collection personnelle d'automobiles célèbre dans cette capitale à peine plus grande
que Sherbrooke et où tout le monde se connaît. Le garage de sa vaste maison de bardeaux blanche, dans le beau quartier appelé The Trees (parce que toutes les rues y portent des noms d'arbres), contient aussi une Jaguar, des camions de sport et une autocaravane, avec laquelle il aime faire campagne dans les petits villages blottis au fond des innombrables baies et fjords du littoral.
Chez lui, Danny Williams n'est pas juste le premier ministre : il est une star. Ex-hockeyeur-vedette, ex-avocat en vue, ex-homme d'affaires devenu multimillionnaire, il est tout à la fois le Maurice Richard et le René Lévesque de sa nation, bref, le Robin des Bois qui rachètera les faiblesses et les erreurs du passé quitte à forcer le Canada à revoir comment il se définit et se gouverne... ou quitte à s'en séparer.
Ou alors, comme le dépeint Craig Westcott, éditeur du Business Post (un hebdomadaire économique local) et l'un des rares à oser le critiquer ouvertement, Danny Williams n'est qu'un autre démagogue mégalomane du cru terre-neuvien dans la lignée des Joey Smallwood, Brian Peckford ou Brian Tobin , ivre de son pouvoir et qui joue avec le feu, assissur un baril de pétrole, pendant que sa province vit dans une incertitude économique constante.
Quoi qu'il en soit, la population est massivement derrière Williams à plus de 70 %, selon les sondages et pour lui, vraisemblablement, l'élection provinciale du 9 octobre est déjà dans la poche. Il aura donc encore quatre ans pour jouer le match revanche des Newfies, qui sont de moins en moins heureux du choix qu'ils ont fait de se joindre au Canada au milieu du siècle dernier.
C'est le cas par exemple du maire de St. John's, Andy Wells (aucune parenté avec l'ex-premier ministre Clyde Wells). " Nous sommes assez nationalistes par ici ; je serais parfaitement chez moi au Québec, vous savez ", dit le maire, qui apprend le français en lisant L'actualité. "
"Je suis aussi canadien que n'importe qui, mais je ne pense pas que Terre-Neuve a fait une bonne affaire avec la Confédération. Je ne pense pas que nous en avons profité autant que nous aurions dû. Mais les choses vont changer. Il nous fallait un gars comme Danny Williams. "
Une opinion à laquelle souscrit Lorraine Michael, dans l'opposition de gauche au Parlement : " Dans leur coeur, les Terre-Neuviens sont des nationalistes qui aimeraient bien vivre à nouveau dans un pays indépendant. Mais dans leur tête, ils ne voient pas comment cela pourrait se produire. "
Alors, St. John's et Québec, même combat ? Terre-Neuve a aussi sa fête nationale le 24 juin. Le 1er juillet est surtout un jour de deuil, commémorant un régiment local décimé à Beaumont-Hamel, dans le nord de la France, durant la Première Guerre mondiale quand la province était toujours indépendante. Terre-Neuve a aussi son hymne national, Ode to Newfoundland, très prisé auprès de la population, qui est restée attachée au drapeau tricolore vert-blanc-rose, qui a longtemps flotté sur l'île, à l'époque de son indépendance.
Un quincaillier, John Templeton, a créé une gamme de peinture reproduisant fidèlement les couleurs originales des vieilles maisons terre-neuviennes elle se vend comme des homards sur le quai. Les syndicats locaux militent pour une loi anti-briseurs de grève copiée sur celle en vigueur au Québec.
Cet été, les auditeurs de la tribune téléphonique de Bill Rowe, à la radio Voice of the Common Man, débattaient de la possibilité de limoger les sept députés fédéraux de l'île (quatre bleus, trois rouges) et de créer un bloc terre-neuvien pour les remplacer... " Il y a un fort courant nationaliste ici en ce moment, dit Bill Rowe. Si nous étions plus nombreux, nous serions une menace plus sérieuse à l'unité nationale que le Québec ne l'a jamais été. "
Le sentiment d'être une société distincte, l'impression que les Terre-Neuviens ont été roulés par le Canada central et la tentation de la revanche, le tout mâtiné d'un vague rêve d'indépendance : voilà les puits de pétrole politique auxquels carbure Danny Williams.
Terre-Neuve a abdiqué son indépendance à la suite d'un référendum serré et contesté, en 1949. Selon les tenants du Oui, se joindre au Canada allait permettre à cette île pauvre et isolée de découvrir l'eldorado. Mais la génération née après cette union a vite déchanté.
Au début des années 1970, la comédienne Mary Walsh a fait comme bien d'autres jeunes dégourdis de Terre-Neuve : elle a quitté son bled aux horizons et aux ressources limités et a émigré à Toronto, pour étudier et travailler. C'est depuis l'Ontario qu'elle a contribué à donner corps à la révolution culturelle terre-neuvienne. Avec d'autres copains, expatriés comme elle, elle a lancé Codco (pour Cod Company : Morue inc.), troupe de théâtre vite reconnue pour son humour décapant et ses satires sociales et politiques assassines. "On se moquait de la façon dont les Canadiens se moquaient des Newfies à l'époque. C'était comme un exorcisme. "
Mary Walsh est devenue une vedette de la CBC et est retournée, à 52 ans, vivre à St. John's, dans une grande maison de bois au fond d'une cour ombragée. Pour comprendre ce qui se passe en ce moment, il faut savoir d'où nous venons, dit-elle. " Avant, les gens étaient davantage désireux de contrôler leur propre destinée que de s'enrichir. Ils étaient installés au fond de petites baies, en communautés isolées, coupées du monde. Les Terre-Neuviens avaient un esprit de survie, de survivance opiniâtre. On n'a jamais été "au-dessus de nos affaires ", ici.
On n'a jamais vraiment eu d'âge d'or, même lorsqu'on était indépendants. Ce que je perçois maintenant, c'est que comme nation on a fait une longue série de mauvaises affaires, dit Mary Walsh. On a donné l'électricité, donné le pétrole, sans se soucier des redevances ni de garder le contrôle, trop contents qu'on était d'avoir des emplois dans la construction, et on a laissé tout le monde épuiser les bancs de morue. On a investi dans des trucs qui ont foiré, laissé le fédéral fermer le chemin de fer. On s'est fait avoir de tellement de façons... "
Danny Williams est un héros chez lui parce qu'il dit, justement : " No more Mr. Nice Guy " (fini les courbettes). " Ce qu'on dit maintenant, c'est : " Ne signons plus jamais de mauvaises ententes. Ne dilapidons plus nos ressources, essayons d'en tirer un maximum et d'y voir plus clair. " Cela ne me semble pas déraisonnable ", conclut Mary Walsh.
Craig Westcott, propriétaire et éditeur du Business Post, à St. John's, explique que pour beaucoup, telle Mary Walsh, la perte de l'indépendance nationale a été comme un voyage interrompu. " Ce serait une expérience intéressante de reprendre ce voyage et de voir comment on s'en sortirait. Cependant, je ne voudrais pas le faire avec un gars comme Williams au pouvoir ; ce serait beaucoup trop dangereux. "
Les gens d'affaires commencent tout juste à s'habituer à la nouvelle prospérité que le pétrole marin, ses redevances et ses industries dérivées ont apportée à la région de St. John's une ville plus ancienne que Québec, mais qui n'a jamais été plus qu'un gros port de pêche... quand il restait encore du poisson dans la mer. Ils sont aujourd'hui très inquiets de voir le premier ministre traiter les grandes sociétés pétrolières, le gouvernement fédéral ou des alliés aussi costauds qu'Hydro-Québec de manière si cavalière. " Mais ils n'osent le dire publiquement, dit Craig Westcott. Ils ont peur. "
"Peur de quoi, au juste ? " Des représailles. Williams supporte très mal la critique. Dans un endroit comme ici, impossible de faire du business sans devoir traiter avec le gouvernement un jour ou l'autre. Tu ne veux pas être sur sa liste noire. "
Un homme d'affaires proche de l'industrie pétrolière et qui ne veut pas être nommé dit la même chose : " Williams est un microgestionnaire, un politicien à l'ancienne mode, un peu despote, comme ils l'ont toujours été ici depuis Joey Smallwood. Tous les dossiers passent par son bureau, il est au courant de tout et n'oublie rien. "
Ed Hollett travaillait au bureau de Clyde Wells au début des années 1990, quand ce dernier était premier ministre. Hollett est aujourd'hui conseiller en communications et stratégies à St. John's. Il ne croit pas au séparatisme terre-neuvien. " Il n'y a pas de société civile, pas de parti politique, pas de mouvement de masse comme au Québec pour soutenir et alimenter un tel projet. " Cependant, Hollett voit poindre la révolution terre-neuvienne. " D'ici quelques années, la province la plus pauvre du pays rejoindra le club sélect de celles qui paient de la péréquation au lieu d'en recevoir. Cela aura un effet majeur sur l'équilibre des forces au pays qui se maintient toujours dans le triangle Toronto-Ottawa-Montréal. "
Hollett voit très bien Terre-Neuve prendre la tête d'une "force atlantique" qui opérera le rééquilibrage des forces au pays "ce dont les Albertains rêvent aussi, mais qu'ils n'ont pas été capables de réussir, parce qu'ils sont trop... insulaires, justement".
Un tout nouveau newfie power est-il en train d'émerger ? "Depuis le temps que les Terre-Neuviens émigrent, on en trouve partout au Canada, souvent à des postes importants, dit Ed Hollett. Ils ne vont pas se séparer, ils feront plutôt sentir leur présence."
C'est donc cela. L'argent du pétrole permettra à Terre-Neuve de s'affirmer davantage au sein du Canada plutôt que de s'en séparer. Une minorité qui fait sentir sa présence et qui réclame des changements dans la gouvernance du pays ? Le Québec a fait des émules, il faut croire. Désormais, il n'est plus seul dans sa dispute avec le Rest of Canada.-srbp-
Le pétrole de la discorde
Terre-Neuve veut le beurre et l'argent du beurre !
La province la plus pauvre du Canada roule-t-elle sur l'or ? Il y a tout plein de nouveaux restaurants, de petites boutiques chics, de nouveaux édifices rutilants et d'autos neuves dans les rues pittoresques de St. John's (180 000 habitants). Les revenus du gouvernement provincial ont augmenté de 10 % en 2006, lui permettant de baisser les impôts et de commencer à rembourser la dette. Le budget préélectoral de ce printemps regorgeait de généreuses allocations pour des trucs qui plaisent à l'électorat : la santé, l'éducation, la création d'emplois.
Cette abondance vient principalement du pétrole marin que les Terre-Neuviens sont par ailleurs convaincus d'avoir laissé à vil prix aux pétrolières. Jim Flaherty, ministre fédéral des Finances, prévoit que Terre-Neuve fera son entrée dans le club sélect des provinces riches qui donnent de la péréquation au lieu d'en recevoir d'ici deux
ans. Présentement, les transferts du gouvernement fédéral représentent 30 % des six milliards de dollars de revenus du gouvernement de Terre-Neuve.
Cela fait bondir Danny Williams. Il est furieux parce qu'Ottawa avait promis de ne plus inclure les redevances du pétrole dans le calcul de la péréquation, promesse sur laquelle Stephen Harper est revenu dans le dernier budget fédéral.
"Dans le reste du pays, on voit Terre-Neuve comme une province qui veut avoir la péréquation et les revenus du pétrole, mais ici, on ne voit que la promesse non tenue du fédéral ", explique Geoff Meeker, spécialiste des communications proche de l'industrie du pétrole.
Il y a actuellement trois champs pétrolifères (Hibernia, Terra Nova et White Rose) en exploitation au large de l'île. La mise en route d'un quatrième champ, Hebron, le plus grand, est compromise maintenant que Williams demande, au nom de sa province, une participation de 5% au capital de l'entreprise. Les négociations sont au point mort.
"Le pétrole a enrichi le gouvernement et les gens de St. John's, mais pas Terre-Neuve ni les autres Terre-Neuviens ", dit Lorraine Michael, députée NPD. Le taux de chômage est à 13 %, et 51 % seulement des personnes en âge de travailler ont un emploi les petits villages côtiers se dépeuplent, les jeunes partant chercher du travail en Ontario et en Alberta.
Terre-Neuve a rarement eu le gros bout du bâton dans ses négociations avec le Canada central et la grande entreprise. Les partisans de Danny Williams ne voient que les bénéfices accrus qu'il promet à sa province. Mais des investisseurs plus prudents s'inquiètent des risques que ses fanfaronnades font courir à la fragile économie terre-neuvienne. L'exploitation d'une importante mine de nickel à Voisey Bay a été retardée pendant près de 10 ans par une chicane sur la construction d'une raffinerie. L'aménagement des chutes Churchill fait l'objet de difficiles discussions avec Hydro-Québec. Au 10e anniversaire du moratoire sur la pêche à la morue, les stocks de poissons dans la mer sont au plus bas. Avec l'avenir, maintenant incertain, de l'exploitation pétrolière, on comprend Danny Williams de tenir mordicus aux paiements de péréquation. Un tiens vaut mieux que deux tu l'auras...
-srbp-
Swedish FM in blog controversy
Prosecutors are investigating to determine if comments made by a reader of Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt's blog constitute a breach of a Swedish law that holds blog authors responsible for the contents of their site.
(h/t to Media Culpa, which includes links to Bildt's blog and other sources - in Swedish.)
Update: here's the link to Media Culpa with a new URL)
One of the comments being investigated called Palestinians 'spawn of Satan,' while another called them 'a bloody pack of murderers.' In one comment, a reader said: 'give us 24 hours and all Palestinians will be gone, and we'll have 100 percent of Israel.'
Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz, one of Sweden's most senior legal officials, is usually charged with prosecuting cases involving people's constitutional right to freedom of speech.
He ruled, however, that Bildt's blog was not covered by those sections of the constitution regarding free speech, meaning that police and prosecutors were able to take up the case.
-srbp-
(h/t to Media Culpa, which includes links to Bildt's blog and other sources - in Swedish.)
Update: here's the link to Media Culpa with a new URL)
From the Worst Kept Secret file...
Danny Williams will visit the Lieutenant Governor on September 17 to seek a proclamation of the fall election on October 9.
Remember that date.
Monday.
September
17.
Two weeks from today.
Williams told reporters that date last week.
Call Elections NL and that's the date they will tell you.
They will also tell you people have been casting votes already.
Yes, people, the election started two weeks ago.
That's what makes the whole thing increasingly farcical.
Farcical, as in idiotic, as in having the House of Assembly management committee boasting it had stopped members of the House from using their allowances during the election period.
Problem 1: There are no members of the House of Assembly one the election proclamation is issued and the House is dissolved and the seats are vacated.
Do they think we are stupid or are they that stunned?
Problem 2: The election has been on all summer, what with the Premier and his Winnebago running around dispensing public cash to anyone with their hand stuck out. The House management committee - including three of the cabinet ministers who approved the Summer of Love spending spree - knows full well that what they announced amounts to the old limerick about some guy named Paul's hexagonal sphere.
Problem 3: Even if that weren't true, voting started on August 20. The fantasy restriction doesn't start until 17 September. Big freakin' deal.
Remember that date.
Monday.
September
17.
Two weeks from today.
Williams told reporters that date last week.
Call Elections NL and that's the date they will tell you.
They will also tell you people have been casting votes already.
Yes, people, the election started two weeks ago.
That's what makes the whole thing increasingly farcical.
Farcical, as in idiotic, as in having the House of Assembly management committee boasting it had stopped members of the House from using their allowances during the election period.
Problem 1: There are no members of the House of Assembly one the election proclamation is issued and the House is dissolved and the seats are vacated.
Do they think we are stupid or are they that stunned?
Problem 2: The election has been on all summer, what with the Premier and his Winnebago running around dispensing public cash to anyone with their hand stuck out. The House management committee - including three of the cabinet ministers who approved the Summer of Love spending spree - knows full well that what they announced amounts to the old limerick about some guy named Paul's hexagonal sphere.
Problem 3: Even if that weren't true, voting started on August 20. The fantasy restriction doesn't start until 17 September. Big freakin' deal.
-srbp-
02 September 2007
Placentia Bay gets the crabs: more proof of the evils of Confederation
It's only a matter of time before someone in Newfoundland (Labrador seems not to generate the conspiracy-minded) holds out the story of the European green crab as yet more proof that we suffer on the rack of Confederation.
See, obviously, if Newfoundland was an independent country - so the argument will likely go - these crabs would have been detected and eliminated long before they showed up in Placentia Bay.
Well, either that or the crabs are able to invade the rich fishing grounds of Placentia Bay due entirely to the neglect, indifference and stupidity of the federal fisheries department. Not like we haven't heard a variation on that theme before.
Some might even suppose the "nasty little critters" are being encouraged - if they weren't actually introduced here by a fisheries patrol boat in the first place - in order to destroy the fishery and help keep the poor benighted people of Newfoundland in a position of perpetual servitude to Ottawa and its evil minions.
You see, it's like "The Titanic" (h/t to daimnation)
See, obviously, if Newfoundland was an independent country - so the argument will likely go - these crabs would have been detected and eliminated long before they showed up in Placentia Bay.
Well, either that or the crabs are able to invade the rich fishing grounds of Placentia Bay due entirely to the neglect, indifference and stupidity of the federal fisheries department. Not like we haven't heard a variation on that theme before.
Some might even suppose the "nasty little critters" are being encouraged - if they weren't actually introduced here by a fisheries patrol boat in the first place - in order to destroy the fishery and help keep the poor benighted people of Newfoundland in a position of perpetual servitude to Ottawa and its evil minions.
You see, it's like "The Titanic" (h/t to daimnation)
-srbp-
Creativity dots
John Gushue maintains one of the most intellectually stimulating blogs on the go anywhere.
Ok.
That is a bit gushy and over-the-top, but check out Dot Dot Dot and you'll be hard-pressed not to agree it is filled with an eclectic mix of...well...just about anything and everything. And it's all intriguing
This past week, John paid tribute to local broadcaster John O'Mara, who passed away at far too early an age. John's post is simple, touching and reflective of the views of anyone who knew John O'Mara even casually.
What really caught the eye this week, though were two posts on commercials produced for Cadbury and Honda. The Cadbury spot is part of a new campaign in the UK and to paraphrase John's description, it features a gorilla, a drum kit and a Phil Collins song just about everyone under the age of 50 can relate to. Rather than embed the video, just follow the link to John's space and read his comments. The vid is embedded there.
Ditto for an inspiring spot for Honda that cost millions, took three months to put together and involved 606 complete takes. 605 were a bust. The last one was a keeper.
As a last bit for this post, we've posted links before to ads for the Sony Bravia built on the tag "Colour like.no.other." The versions in that link are inferior to the Sony websites linked in the paragraphs below.
The first was titled simply "Balls". it involved 250,000 high-bounce balls of various colours unleashed down a set of streets in San Francisco.
The second was "Paint". An abandoned housing project in Glasgow, a few tens of tons of paint of different colours and some carefully timed explosions provide a visually breathtaking spot.
The third, being shot in New York, involves:
The picture at left shows some of the rabbits under construction.
No video yet but if the "Bunnies" live up to "Paint" and "Balls", then hang on to your eyeballs.
And ya wanna know the really odd thing? The local Sony Store does not have either of these spots in any form or format to show on their Bravias as a way of demonstrating that it is colour like no other.
Ok.
That is a bit gushy and over-the-top, but check out Dot Dot Dot and you'll be hard-pressed not to agree it is filled with an eclectic mix of...well...just about anything and everything. And it's all intriguing
This past week, John paid tribute to local broadcaster John O'Mara, who passed away at far too early an age. John's post is simple, touching and reflective of the views of anyone who knew John O'Mara even casually.
What really caught the eye this week, though were two posts on commercials produced for Cadbury and Honda. The Cadbury spot is part of a new campaign in the UK and to paraphrase John's description, it features a gorilla, a drum kit and a Phil Collins song just about everyone under the age of 50 can relate to. Rather than embed the video, just follow the link to John's space and read his comments. The vid is embedded there.
Ditto for an inspiring spot for Honda that cost millions, took three months to put together and involved 606 complete takes. 605 were a bust. The last one was a keeper.
As a last bit for this post, we've posted links before to ads for the Sony Bravia built on the tag "Colour like.no.other." The versions in that link are inferior to the Sony websites linked in the paragraphs below.
The first was titled simply "Balls". it involved 250,000 high-bounce balls of various colours unleashed down a set of streets in San Francisco.
The second was "Paint". An abandoned housing project in Glasgow, a few tens of tons of paint of different colours and some carefully timed explosions provide a visually breathtaking spot.
The third, being shot in New York, involves:
2.5 tones of plasticine on set
40 animators
3 weeks
189 2 ft bunnies
150 1 ft cubes
10ft x20 ft purple wave
30ft giant rabbit.
6 cameras.
40 animators working through 4 hours generated 4 seconds of footage.
40 animators working on the same scene had never been attempted before.
The 60 second spot will be constructed of approximately 100,000 stills.
The picture at left shows some of the rabbits under construction.No video yet but if the "Bunnies" live up to "Paint" and "Balls", then hang on to your eyeballs.
And ya wanna know the really odd thing? The local Sony Store does not have either of these spots in any form or format to show on their Bravias as a way of demonstrating that it is colour like no other.
-srbp-
01 September 2007
DOFASCO buys Wabush Mines
In the latest twist of the tale, DOFASCO will buy out Wabush Mines, thus shutting Consolidated Thompson (CT) out of the equation.
Quebec Cartier considered buying the mine once.
Consolidated Thompson considered it in late 2006, then rejected it.
Then Stelco sold its shares or at least started to sell them to CT, until this DOFASCO decision. The other bit owned by Cleveland-Cliffs was also supposed to go to CT.
Now DOFASCO, owned by a Belgian concern with international interests, will exercise its options and buy out its other partners in the western Labrador mining venture. Arcelor/Mittal is described on the company website this way:
Evidently, the done deal wasn't quite so done after all.
-srbp-
Quebec Cartier considered buying the mine once.
Consolidated Thompson considered it in late 2006, then rejected it.
Then Stelco sold its shares or at least started to sell them to CT, until this DOFASCO decision. The other bit owned by Cleveland-Cliffs was also supposed to go to CT.
Now DOFASCO, owned by a Belgian concern with international interests, will exercise its options and buy out its other partners in the western Labrador mining venture. Arcelor/Mittal is described on the company website this way:
Its industrial presence in Europe, Asia, Africa and America gives the Group exposure to all the key steel markets, from emerging to mature. ArcelorMittal will be looking to develop positions in the high-growth Chinese and Indian markets.This announcement is a surprise, perhaps especially for provincial transportation minister John Hickey. In June, Hickey delivered a ministerial statement in the House of Assembly in which he praised the CT acquisition of a majority stake in Wabush Mines as evidence of the work supposedly done by the provincial government to facilitate the deal.
ArcelorMittal key pro forma financials for 2006 show combined revenues of US$ 88.6 billion. Its production was equivalent to around 10% of world steel output.
Evidently, the done deal wasn't quite so done after all.
-srbp-
The Spleen Vents Live!
One Bond Papers reader was inspired enough by The Spleen to offer an audio mix of some choice moments from Backtalk.
With the marvels of modern technology, we bring you 45 seconds of some of the best moments of the famous "can you hear me?" interruptions.
(h/t to Donny for the audio edit.)
With the marvels of modern technology, we bring you 45 seconds of some of the best moments of the famous "can you hear me?" interruptions.
(h/t to Donny for the audio edit.)
-srbp-
Fabian Manning: Fear suffering fear monger
Fabian Manning is desperately afraid he will lose his seat in the next federal election.
How do you explain fear mongering, let alone his weather office stunt the week the Liberal caucus was in town?
How do you explain taking what is essentially an anti-environmental stand in a province where the environment is pretty darned important?
How do you take an anti-environmental stand when your riding includes Placentia Bay and its delicate marine eco-system and its oil industry all existing in a balance people work very hard to protect?
Basically, Manning is trying to play the fear of lost jobs at a place like Bull Arm, it's an old stunt and it's pretty obvious. Manning cannot cite a single source of evidence for his claim, outside the Connie caucus or its research bureau.
By the by, on that gander thing, someone should have asked Fabian if the caucus should go see where aviation forecasting - that used to be done at Gander - is taking place. The Connies promised to replace public, marine and aviation forecasting, if memory serves.
Or maybe people could go visit the 650 new soldiers in Goose Bay, welcoming the arrival of the unmanned aerial vehicle squadron.
A good guy, Manning, but lately given to these poorly thought out stunts rather than solid delivery.
At least, Fabe isn't like two of his unsuccessful colleagues from the last election, Conservative candidates whose campaigns are implicated in the in-and-out election financing scandal.
Heavens knows what bizarre claims Fabe would be trying then.
How do you explain fear mongering, let alone his weather office stunt the week the Liberal caucus was in town?
How do you explain taking what is essentially an anti-environmental stand in a province where the environment is pretty darned important?
How do you take an anti-environmental stand when your riding includes Placentia Bay and its delicate marine eco-system and its oil industry all existing in a balance people work very hard to protect?
Basically, Manning is trying to play the fear of lost jobs at a place like Bull Arm, it's an old stunt and it's pretty obvious. Manning cannot cite a single source of evidence for his claim, outside the Connie caucus or its research bureau.
By the by, on that gander thing, someone should have asked Fabian if the caucus should go see where aviation forecasting - that used to be done at Gander - is taking place. The Connies promised to replace public, marine and aviation forecasting, if memory serves.
Or maybe people could go visit the 650 new soldiers in Goose Bay, welcoming the arrival of the unmanned aerial vehicle squadron.
A good guy, Manning, but lately given to these poorly thought out stunts rather than solid delivery.
At least, Fabe isn't like two of his unsuccessful colleagues from the last election, Conservative candidates whose campaigns are implicated in the in-and-out election financing scandal.
Heavens knows what bizarre claims Fabe would be trying then.
-srbp-
Hickey and his selective grumbling
Transportation minister John Hickey is slagging Air Canada for cancelling its direct flights between St. John's and London. The airline cancelled its year-round service on the route last summer, but introduced a summer-only service shortly after.
According to the Saturday Telegram, Air Canada announced the decision to cancel the year-round flights in May 2006, but announced the introduction of summer-only flights in July 2006.
That makes it exceedingly strange for Hickey to claim that the airline was trying to crush any competition on the route. At the time the airline decided on summer-only flights, it was bowing to political pressure and a public outcry led by the local airport authority, provincial politicians and St. John's mayor Andy Wells.
Hickey is quoted in Friday's provincial government news release as saying:
"Air Canada decided to abandon the transatlantic market in Newfoundland and Labrador last year, but decided this summer to come back to ensure that since they weren’t going to provide this necessary service, then no other provider, such as Astraeus, would be able to either."
Hickey's comments are at odds with the facts to the point of being complete nonsense.
Last February, Hickey proudly posed with the managing director of a UK-based charter airline servicing a resort complex at Deer Lake that announced it would be introducing year-round service between St. John's and Gatwick.
That was actually the second Astraeus announcement and covered the summer months. In November 2006, the company announced it would be flying during the fall and winter - note the timings - between Deer Lake and Gatwick with stops along the way in St. John's. In November, tourism minister Tom Hedderson joined Hickey and business minister Kevin O'Brien in the November laudatory release but only by O'Brien in February.
But again, here's the thing: when Air Canada announced it's summer runs it had no competition and there was little likelihood any other airline would take on the flights. Hickey's conspiracy theory is simply ludicrous.
The Friday announcement is all the more bizarre given that at no point has Hickey said a word about the Astraeus pull-out, even though he lavishly praised the company in November and February.
The end result is that local businesses - especially those in the oil business - are left in a bit of a tight spot. The Air Canada flights could handle cargo of the type often shipped from Europe to the local oil patch. Astraeus could never handle that work and that freight volume plus the passenger loads likely would be an important part of making the route commercially viable.
Hickey's posturing doesn't do much to find a new airline for the route.
What it does do, though, is pose a fairly obvious question: why did Hickey keep his mouth shut in early August but issue a news release with incorrect information in it later on solely for the purposes of slagging only one of two airlines involved. Surely, if Hickey was concerned to chastise a company for abandoning a route, he would have good cause to tear a strip off both Astraeus and Air Canada.
He might have more cause for criticising Astraeus since the company ditched St. John's after only a handful of flights that never even lasted a single year - despite the company's initial commitment to year-round service.
Perhaps Hickey is growling as a cover for something else, like maybe the inability of the current administration to address some of the issues that affected Air Canada's service in the first place. The London - St. John's portion of Air Canada's route was unique in the country since it involved arriving in a secondary destination first; the flight was actually a part of the London to Halifax run.
Customs and cost issues helped push Air Canada to make a decision to drop St. John's, but it might have been possible to deal with those if, for argument's sake, the provincial government actually had a relationship with the federal government that was on something above life support. Federal regulations required all passengers to de-plane at the first port of entry and clear customs. Had the regulation been amended to allow Halifax-bound passengers to remain on board, as in-transit passengers, then the entire issue might have been settled. of course, it's more than a bit late for that sort of positive intervention by a cabinet minister
And maybe we have just stumbled on the reason why Hickey is growling: it's a cover for his impotence.
As for why Hickey kept silent on Astraeus' decision only a month ago, we may have to ponder that one a little harder.
There's bound to be a good answer, though.
According to the Saturday Telegram, Air Canada announced the decision to cancel the year-round flights in May 2006, but announced the introduction of summer-only flights in July 2006.
That makes it exceedingly strange for Hickey to claim that the airline was trying to crush any competition on the route. At the time the airline decided on summer-only flights, it was bowing to political pressure and a public outcry led by the local airport authority, provincial politicians and St. John's mayor Andy Wells.
Hickey is quoted in Friday's provincial government news release as saying:
"Air Canada decided to abandon the transatlantic market in Newfoundland and Labrador last year, but decided this summer to come back to ensure that since they weren’t going to provide this necessary service, then no other provider, such as Astraeus, would be able to either."
Hickey's comments are at odds with the facts to the point of being complete nonsense.
Last February, Hickey proudly posed with the managing director of a UK-based charter airline servicing a resort complex at Deer Lake that announced it would be introducing year-round service between St. John's and Gatwick.
That was actually the second Astraeus announcement and covered the summer months. In November 2006, the company announced it would be flying during the fall and winter - note the timings - between Deer Lake and Gatwick with stops along the way in St. John's. In November, tourism minister Tom Hedderson joined Hickey and business minister Kevin O'Brien in the November laudatory release but only by O'Brien in February.
But again, here's the thing: when Air Canada announced it's summer runs it had no competition and there was little likelihood any other airline would take on the flights. Hickey's conspiracy theory is simply ludicrous.
The Friday announcement is all the more bizarre given that at no point has Hickey said a word about the Astraeus pull-out, even though he lavishly praised the company in November and February.
The end result is that local businesses - especially those in the oil business - are left in a bit of a tight spot. The Air Canada flights could handle cargo of the type often shipped from Europe to the local oil patch. Astraeus could never handle that work and that freight volume plus the passenger loads likely would be an important part of making the route commercially viable.
Hickey's posturing doesn't do much to find a new airline for the route.
What it does do, though, is pose a fairly obvious question: why did Hickey keep his mouth shut in early August but issue a news release with incorrect information in it later on solely for the purposes of slagging only one of two airlines involved. Surely, if Hickey was concerned to chastise a company for abandoning a route, he would have good cause to tear a strip off both Astraeus and Air Canada.
He might have more cause for criticising Astraeus since the company ditched St. John's after only a handful of flights that never even lasted a single year - despite the company's initial commitment to year-round service.
Perhaps Hickey is growling as a cover for something else, like maybe the inability of the current administration to address some of the issues that affected Air Canada's service in the first place. The London - St. John's portion of Air Canada's route was unique in the country since it involved arriving in a secondary destination first; the flight was actually a part of the London to Halifax run.
Customs and cost issues helped push Air Canada to make a decision to drop St. John's, but it might have been possible to deal with those if, for argument's sake, the provincial government actually had a relationship with the federal government that was on something above life support. Federal regulations required all passengers to de-plane at the first port of entry and clear customs. Had the regulation been amended to allow Halifax-bound passengers to remain on board, as in-transit passengers, then the entire issue might have been settled. of course, it's more than a bit late for that sort of positive intervention by a cabinet minister
And maybe we have just stumbled on the reason why Hickey is growling: it's a cover for his impotence.
As for why Hickey kept silent on Astraeus' decision only a month ago, we may have to ponder that one a little harder.
There's bound to be a good answer, though.
-srbp-
31 August 2007
Airport Shuffler to pull pin
Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) will resign on Saturday, according to the Idaho Statesman.
The Statesman's background story on the Craig case includes a reference to details of the senator's activities coming from a blogActiv.org. For a related story, Statesman editor Vicki Gowler discussed the newspaper's editorial decisions on the Craig story with Editor & Publisher.
And on the lighter side, the Larry Craig story has promoted a few bits of online creativity.
This youtube video was posted to blogActiv.
The Statesman's background story on the Craig case includes a reference to details of the senator's activities coming from a blogActiv.org. For a related story, Statesman editor Vicki Gowler discussed the newspaper's editorial decisions on the Craig story with Editor & Publisher.
And on the lighter side, the Larry Craig story has promoted a few bits of online creativity.
This youtube video was posted to blogActiv.
-srbp-
No charges for Barrett
Liberal member of the House of Assembly Percy Barrett won't be facing criminal charges over allegations made last year by the province's auditor general, John Noseworthy.
The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary said today that after an investigation, there was insufficient evidence to lay a charge.
Noseworthy claimed that Barrett had improperly received over $117,000, although Barrett own efforts reduced the amount of alleged overpayments by approximately $30,000. For those doing the math, that's an error on Noseworthy's part of 25%. The actual discrepancy may be significantly higher, suggesting that there are other problems with Noseworthy's audit of the legislature.
Bond Papers has already noted that Noseworthy's review missed entirely substantive discrepancies between budgeted amounts and actual spending in the province's legislature for the period from 1998 to 2006. In the illustration above, the red line represents the actual discrepancy between budget and actual, while the yellow represents the amounts reported by Noseworthy. The numbers used in the red line were confirmed by the Green report.
While directed by cabinet last summer to complete a detailed audit of the period from 1998 to 2004, Noseworthy has reported on other matters instead , including a detailed examination of spending by individual members dating back to 1989. That report is due before October 9.
So far, no word on the detailed audit of the legislature.
The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary said today that after an investigation, there was insufficient evidence to lay a charge.
Noseworthy claimed that Barrett had improperly received over $117,000, although Barrett own efforts reduced the amount of alleged overpayments by approximately $30,000. For those doing the math, that's an error on Noseworthy's part of 25%. The actual discrepancy may be significantly higher, suggesting that there are other problems with Noseworthy's audit of the legislature.
Bond Papers has already noted that Noseworthy's review missed entirely substantive discrepancies between budgeted amounts and actual spending in the province's legislature for the period from 1998 to 2006. In the illustration above, the red line represents the actual discrepancy between budget and actual, while the yellow represents the amounts reported by Noseworthy. The numbers used in the red line were confirmed by the Green report. While directed by cabinet last summer to complete a detailed audit of the period from 1998 to 2004, Noseworthy has reported on other matters instead , including a detailed examination of spending by individual members dating back to 1989. That report is due before October 9.
So far, no word on the detailed audit of the legislature.
-srbp-
The Spleen
Must be something about a certain breed of radio talk show hosts.
Garth Turner - not someone quoted often in these parts - refers to to rabid rants and "spleen" being unleashed by a couple of talk jocks in other parts of the country Turner is visiting having left the Real Capital of Canada (tm pending).
Turner could have been talking about VOCM's afternoon monologue hosted by a former leader of the Liberal Party in this province who has long since bolted and joined the local Tories. He did a stint as Danny Williams' personal rep to Hy's but packed it in for personal reasons after a few months.
Spleen is something Bill Rowe has no hesitation in venting. Unbiased is something he doesn't even pretend to be, especially when Rowe's former boss has offered up his shell-like for Bill to coo in for a few minutes.
"Premier, tell us in all your unfailing perfection why everyone else is wrong and you are so right every single time?"
"Isn't it amazing how [insert the name of the foreign enemy of the moment] cannot realize they should give up now before you unleash your mighty vengeance?"
We exaggerate for comedic effect but regular listeners might find it the phrases understate reality.
One might easily imagine Rowe is merely recycling stuff he used in cabinet meetings under Smallwood. Not bad to use 40 year old material and still drag in bucks for it.
Try listening as some poor caller dares to challenge one of Bill's stock lines. "Caller? Caller?" he'll interject after a few words have come over the phone. "Caller? I am not following you. Make your point please."
Never mind that the caller made a point in unmistakeably plain English a five-year-old could grasp. Like "I think the Premier might possibly be wrong."
And then after only a few other words, he starts talking over the person who by now might be starting to realize Bill isn't going to let the caller's blasphemy continue against the Accepted Truth: "Caller? Caller? Caller? Can I get a word in here edgewise?"
Rant? There's a reason Crap Talk is properly called a monologue, rather than the dialogue you get with the opinionated but never un-gentlemanly Randy Simms.
What makes Turner's observation timely was an especially miserable performance by Rowe in slagging Stephane Dion during the Thursday episode. Dion's people had apparently made arrangements to have the Liberal leader call Rowe at 2:45. When his meetings when long and his schedule was off - as busy national party leaders are wont to experience - Dion's staffer called to see if it might be possible to call an hour later.
Rowe took this as an excuse to claim that Dion was disorganized and generally to run down both Dion and his staff.
The most pathetic part of Rowe's display was that as a former party leader and a fairly experienced political type, let alone a guy who has hosted radio rant-fests for the better part of his adult life, Rowe knew full bloody well that his characterization of the incident was, in a word: crap.
Had it been someone like Rowe's former boss, one imagines Rowe would have thanked heavens for extra time to vamp on the future guest's various perfections. Another national leader, like say the Prime Minister, and Rowe would be saying anything but the dirty dig he unleashed on Dion.
To cap it all, Rowe then proceeded to congratulate himself for having predicted Dion's victory and making some joke about looking for a senate seat if he predicted Dion would be next living at 24 Sussex.
That column must have come the week Bill wasn't checking out Lysiane Gagnon columns for inspirational phrases.
The upshot of it all?
Well, it turns out Garth Turner was right about talk show hosts, rants and spleens.
If he'd been in St. John's on Thursday, he'd have heard one who teach master classes in the subjects.
Garth Turner - not someone quoted often in these parts - refers to to rabid rants and "spleen" being unleashed by a couple of talk jocks in other parts of the country Turner is visiting having left the Real Capital of Canada (tm pending).
Turner could have been talking about VOCM's afternoon monologue hosted by a former leader of the Liberal Party in this province who has long since bolted and joined the local Tories. He did a stint as Danny Williams' personal rep to Hy's but packed it in for personal reasons after a few months.
Spleen is something Bill Rowe has no hesitation in venting. Unbiased is something he doesn't even pretend to be, especially when Rowe's former boss has offered up his shell-like for Bill to coo in for a few minutes.
"Premier, tell us in all your unfailing perfection why everyone else is wrong and you are so right every single time?"
"Isn't it amazing how [insert the name of the foreign enemy of the moment] cannot realize they should give up now before you unleash your mighty vengeance?"
We exaggerate for comedic effect but regular listeners might find it the phrases understate reality.
One might easily imagine Rowe is merely recycling stuff he used in cabinet meetings under Smallwood. Not bad to use 40 year old material and still drag in bucks for it.
Try listening as some poor caller dares to challenge one of Bill's stock lines. "Caller? Caller?" he'll interject after a few words have come over the phone. "Caller? I am not following you. Make your point please."
Never mind that the caller made a point in unmistakeably plain English a five-year-old could grasp. Like "I think the Premier might possibly be wrong."
And then after only a few other words, he starts talking over the person who by now might be starting to realize Bill isn't going to let the caller's blasphemy continue against the Accepted Truth: "Caller? Caller? Caller? Can I get a word in here edgewise?"
Rant? There's a reason Crap Talk is properly called a monologue, rather than the dialogue you get with the opinionated but never un-gentlemanly Randy Simms.
What makes Turner's observation timely was an especially miserable performance by Rowe in slagging Stephane Dion during the Thursday episode. Dion's people had apparently made arrangements to have the Liberal leader call Rowe at 2:45. When his meetings when long and his schedule was off - as busy national party leaders are wont to experience - Dion's staffer called to see if it might be possible to call an hour later.
Rowe took this as an excuse to claim that Dion was disorganized and generally to run down both Dion and his staff.
The most pathetic part of Rowe's display was that as a former party leader and a fairly experienced political type, let alone a guy who has hosted radio rant-fests for the better part of his adult life, Rowe knew full bloody well that his characterization of the incident was, in a word: crap.
Had it been someone like Rowe's former boss, one imagines Rowe would have thanked heavens for extra time to vamp on the future guest's various perfections. Another national leader, like say the Prime Minister, and Rowe would be saying anything but the dirty dig he unleashed on Dion.
To cap it all, Rowe then proceeded to congratulate himself for having predicted Dion's victory and making some joke about looking for a senate seat if he predicted Dion would be next living at 24 Sussex.
That column must have come the week Bill wasn't checking out Lysiane Gagnon columns for inspirational phrases.
The upshot of it all?
Well, it turns out Garth Turner was right about talk show hosts, rants and spleens.
If he'd been in St. John's on Thursday, he'd have heard one who teach master classes in the subjects.
Williams creates Hebron royalty confusion
In a letter to the Friday National Post, Premier Danny Williams has given a completely different version of the Hebron royalty regime from the one announced on August 22, 2007 and confirmed by natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale in an interview with the Telegram a few days later.
The generic regime basic royalty begins with a 1% royalty on gross revenue and rises through a series of triggers to as much as 7.5% on gross revenue. After simple payout, the basic royalty - at whatever rate is in place at that time - continues and is supplemented by additional royalties based on a net revenue calculation. Simple payout is the point at which the project development costs are covered.
Dunderdale confirmed the 1% flat rate to the Telegram, but referred obliquely to a 5% rate applying in a net royalty period (i.e. after simple pay out.) She apparently provided no further details. At no point was there reference to a potential 7.5% basic royalty.
The scenario painted by the Premier for the National Post would assume project simple payout after less than four years of production, despite total project costs estimated to be $7.0 billion to $11 billion. Even at the lower range of costs, i.e. start-up costs of $5.0 to $6.0 billion, the project would likely take longer than that to pay out unless one assumes sustained high prices for Hebron heavy oil well into the future.
As well, Williams' comments suggest the royalty regime for Hebron is significantly different from what was announced on August 22 and significantly different from the generic regime. Under the generic regime, the basic royalty continues at a fixed rate after simple payout but is supplement by a series of higher rates applied to a net revenue. Williams' comments in the Post suggest further variability in the basic royalty after simple payout.
No information is available beyond the government's contradictory comments since the memorandum of understanding among the operators (including the provincial government) prohibits the disclosure of the document.
There is no way of confirming the extent of the confidentiality clause to determine if the information released to date actually violates the confidentiality agreement.
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. As well, the province will still receive the monetary benefits of being a 4.9% owner of this project during these early years.The government Hebron news release stated that the only changes to the province's generic royalty regime were to add a Tier 3 royalty (the so-called super-royalty) and to reduce the basic royalty to a flat 1% until the project attained simple payout. It made no reference to the basic royalty level after simple payout. Presumably, Tier and 2 would continue as currently stated in the generic regime.
The generic regime basic royalty begins with a 1% royalty on gross revenue and rises through a series of triggers to as much as 7.5% on gross revenue. After simple payout, the basic royalty - at whatever rate is in place at that time - continues and is supplemented by additional royalties based on a net revenue calculation. Simple payout is the point at which the project development costs are covered.
Dunderdale confirmed the 1% flat rate to the Telegram, but referred obliquely to a 5% rate applying in a net royalty period (i.e. after simple pay out.) She apparently provided no further details. At no point was there reference to a potential 7.5% basic royalty.
The scenario painted by the Premier for the National Post would assume project simple payout after less than four years of production, despite total project costs estimated to be $7.0 billion to $11 billion. Even at the lower range of costs, i.e. start-up costs of $5.0 to $6.0 billion, the project would likely take longer than that to pay out unless one assumes sustained high prices for Hebron heavy oil well into the future.
As well, Williams' comments suggest the royalty regime for Hebron is significantly different from what was announced on August 22 and significantly different from the generic regime. Under the generic regime, the basic royalty continues at a fixed rate after simple payout but is supplement by a series of higher rates applied to a net revenue. Williams' comments in the Post suggest further variability in the basic royalty after simple payout.
No information is available beyond the government's contradictory comments since the memorandum of understanding among the operators (including the provincial government) prohibits the disclosure of the document.
There is no way of confirming the extent of the confidentiality clause to determine if the information released to date actually violates the confidentiality agreement.
-srbp-
House management committee reveals more fumbles on the road from perdition
Rejoice!
The members of the House of Assembly's internal management committee have voted to prevent members of the legislature from making claims against their constituency allowance once an election has been formally called. They met for the first time this week.
In an effort to appear more attentive to controls on public spending, Speaker Harvey Hodder is quoted in a CBC news story, linked above, as saying that:
"If members who are incumbents can access their constituency funds during the election period, that in my mind does not facilitate a level playing field for all candidates."
Sounds wonderful, until you realize that this decision came in a fairly obvious response to the revelation that the old rules on constituency allowances - not the tighter Green ones - will be in place until October 9. Members can still make donations from their funds, even though Green decried it and his new rules prohibit it.
As you may recall, deputy premier Tom Rideout turned himself and the very concept of time in knots trying to explain away that bit of business.
In any event, the members of the new commission - which incidentally includes many faces from the old committee - also voted to take away cell phones from members of the legislature once the election is formally called.
Sounds marvelous, until you realize that under changes to the Elections Act also made last spring, voting is actually already underway.
That's right. The legislature has not been dissolved and candidates are not legally in place but people have actually voted already, as they have been legally entitled to do since August 20.
Sounds wonderful too, until you realize that once an election is called, there are actually no members of the House of Assembly to file claims. The election is formally called when the Premier visits Government House and advises His Honour to dissolve the House.
By definition, dissolving the legislature puts everyone on the street and everyone - including incumbents - becomes nothing more than a candidate. They have no right, legally or otherwise, to lay a claim on the public purse for a single nickel of expenditure from their constituency allowances. They have no right to travel expenses or cellular telephones or any of the other perks of office since - by the most obvious of obvious points - they no longer hold office.
(As an aside, cabinet ministers remain cabinet ministers since they actually hold those appoints separately from their place as members of the House. Government administration carries on even without a legislature. Their incomes should drop as well, given that they are not entitled to pay as members of the legislature during a period when - legally - they aren't members of the legislature.)
So what went on here?
Mr. Speaker Hodder claims that the management committee were correcting a problem with Chief Justice Green's report. According to the CBC story, Chief Justice Green "recommended that incumbent members of the house should be able to use government money to do their constituency work after the writ is dropped."
Of course, there is no such recommendation among the list of recommendations in the Green report. It is hard to imagine the Chief Justice consciously creating a complete nonsense. By reputation, Derek Green doesn't do nonsense.
There is an anomaly in s. 14 of the Green bill that would entitle members to claim allowances and expenses until the date of the next election. (That's easy to explain given the size of the report and the amount of work involved.)
The section, as it stands, would literally mean voting day, but, as such, it clearly contradicts the legal order dissolving the legislature and therefore vacating every seat in the House. The two things can't exist at the same time and, as much as your humble e-scribbler is not a lawyer, it would be a safe bet that any court worth its stuff would toss that section of the Act out the window on the face of it.
In their haste to get the Green bill through the legislature last year and appear to be making substantive changes, the members and their lawyers obviously missed this point. They were able to delay the bits of the legislation that would have genuinely restricted spending by members, until after the election - although they didn't tell us that - but they missed the little anomaly that really ought not to have caused much concern.
What the management committee did today was tidy up an oversight and then claim a great moral victory by blaming the mess on Chief Justice Green. Pure fluff and nonsense.
It's good they fixed the problem, but frankly, trying to claim credit for doing something that they all know couldn't really exist in the first place seems just a bit of a stretch.
Of course, restricting the thing to the period after a writ drops seems a waste of time given that these same legislators are able to claim expenses during the real election which, as we've said, started on August 20.
But here's an interesting question:
Even though that little section of the Green bill wouldn't stand up to a court challenge, what about the sections of the Elections Act that allow voting in an election that hasn't been called yet?
Is that constitutional?
Update: Voting has started and, apparently so has the amateur political commentary from I.P Freely. This stuff turned up during the by-elections during the winter and it seems to have returned.
The members of the House of Assembly's internal management committee have voted to prevent members of the legislature from making claims against their constituency allowance once an election has been formally called. They met for the first time this week.
In an effort to appear more attentive to controls on public spending, Speaker Harvey Hodder is quoted in a CBC news story, linked above, as saying that:
"If members who are incumbents can access their constituency funds during the election period, that in my mind does not facilitate a level playing field for all candidates."
Sounds wonderful, until you realize that this decision came in a fairly obvious response to the revelation that the old rules on constituency allowances - not the tighter Green ones - will be in place until October 9. Members can still make donations from their funds, even though Green decried it and his new rules prohibit it.
As you may recall, deputy premier Tom Rideout turned himself and the very concept of time in knots trying to explain away that bit of business.
In any event, the members of the new commission - which incidentally includes many faces from the old committee - also voted to take away cell phones from members of the legislature once the election is formally called.
Sounds marvelous, until you realize that under changes to the Elections Act also made last spring, voting is actually already underway.
That's right. The legislature has not been dissolved and candidates are not legally in place but people have actually voted already, as they have been legally entitled to do since August 20.
Sounds wonderful too, until you realize that once an election is called, there are actually no members of the House of Assembly to file claims. The election is formally called when the Premier visits Government House and advises His Honour to dissolve the House.
By definition, dissolving the legislature puts everyone on the street and everyone - including incumbents - becomes nothing more than a candidate. They have no right, legally or otherwise, to lay a claim on the public purse for a single nickel of expenditure from their constituency allowances. They have no right to travel expenses or cellular telephones or any of the other perks of office since - by the most obvious of obvious points - they no longer hold office.
(As an aside, cabinet ministers remain cabinet ministers since they actually hold those appoints separately from their place as members of the House. Government administration carries on even without a legislature. Their incomes should drop as well, given that they are not entitled to pay as members of the legislature during a period when - legally - they aren't members of the legislature.)
So what went on here?
Mr. Speaker Hodder claims that the management committee were correcting a problem with Chief Justice Green's report. According to the CBC story, Chief Justice Green "recommended that incumbent members of the house should be able to use government money to do their constituency work after the writ is dropped."
Of course, there is no such recommendation among the list of recommendations in the Green report. It is hard to imagine the Chief Justice consciously creating a complete nonsense. By reputation, Derek Green doesn't do nonsense.
There is an anomaly in s. 14 of the Green bill that would entitle members to claim allowances and expenses until the date of the next election. (That's easy to explain given the size of the report and the amount of work involved.)
The section, as it stands, would literally mean voting day, but, as such, it clearly contradicts the legal order dissolving the legislature and therefore vacating every seat in the House. The two things can't exist at the same time and, as much as your humble e-scribbler is not a lawyer, it would be a safe bet that any court worth its stuff would toss that section of the Act out the window on the face of it.
In their haste to get the Green bill through the legislature last year and appear to be making substantive changes, the members and their lawyers obviously missed this point. They were able to delay the bits of the legislation that would have genuinely restricted spending by members, until after the election - although they didn't tell us that - but they missed the little anomaly that really ought not to have caused much concern.
What the management committee did today was tidy up an oversight and then claim a great moral victory by blaming the mess on Chief Justice Green. Pure fluff and nonsense.
It's good they fixed the problem, but frankly, trying to claim credit for doing something that they all know couldn't really exist in the first place seems just a bit of a stretch.
Of course, restricting the thing to the period after a writ drops seems a waste of time given that these same legislators are able to claim expenses during the real election which, as we've said, started on August 20.
But here's an interesting question:
Even though that little section of the Green bill wouldn't stand up to a court challenge, what about the sections of the Elections Act that allow voting in an election that hasn't been called yet?
Is that constitutional?
Update: Voting has started and, apparently so has the amateur political commentary from I.P Freely. This stuff turned up during the by-elections during the winter and it seems to have returned.
-srbp-
30 August 2007
Nightstalkers!
Some will get this.Most won't.
If you don't get, it don't worry about it.
Left: Albrecht Drurer, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Right: Patch of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, United States Army. The Nightstalkers. "Nightstalkers Don't Quit."Death rides a pale horse.
The Minneapolis Airport Shuffle
CNN has both the transcript and audio of a police interview with a senator involved in an alleged lewd behaviour that allegedly took place in the toilet stalls at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. The Minnesota police released the transcript and an audio recording to the news media across the United States on Thursday.
Bond lampooned the thing a couple of days ago, and frankly the transcript doesn't add much to the whole incident; it still seems bizarre for the actions involved, the police response and - this one is really big - a united States senator absolutely an undeniably foolish enough to speak to police without a lawyer present after the senator was arrested and charged.
According to the New York Times, calls are mounting for Idaho Senator Larry Craig to resign. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has, not surprisingly, called Craig's alleged behaviour disgraceful. Romney is shooting for the conservative vote and dumping a guy facing allegations like this would be am easy call. Add that Craig was the co-chair of Romney's campaign - that is until he resigned - and you can pretty much bet little time was taken in the Romney camp to question whether or not to stand by the guy.
While the saga of the Minneapolis Airport Shuffle seems bizarre, other aspects of the story are not. The Idaho Statesman carried a story this week of a 40-year-old Idaho Republican who claims to have had oral sex with Craig in 2004. Statesman editorials have pointed out other aspects of the case, and the senator's past, that have had an unmistakable impact on the story as it has unfolded. For example, the guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge apparently came two months after the arrest and Craig kept the incident from everyone, including his family.
The Statesman capped its coverage by calling for Craig to resign. The editorial board did so citing Craig's desire to keep secrets. and his performance in a public statement after the story broke.
There are a few observations to make, now that the story has developed further.
First of all, Bond's initial reaction was wrong. This is a very serious story. It is serious because of the senator's efforts to avoid or deny dealing with it. Craig apparently has been the subject of local rumours about his sexual activity in the past. The Minneapolis arrest appears to prove the rumours.
Second of all, and as the Idaho Statesman's editorials and coverage make plain, a lack of public accountability or attempting to deny what is obvious is considerably more damaging than dealing with the issue head on.
Third of all, Craig's posturing during the Lewinsky scandal and his opposition to equal marriage measures suggest a measure of hypocrisy, something certainly Idahoans appear not willing to tolerate.
Fourth of all, and looking at it from outside the United States, we might look in bewilderment at a culture which makes an individual's sexual orientation a political issue. Promiscuous heterosexuals can apparently run the entire United States government with not much being said about it.
Fellatio in the Oval office? Not really a problem for most Americans. Most who turned on Clinton - other than hard-core Republicans - did so because of the famous lie, not for the diddling in the broom closet.
But being a gay man?
That's another story in some parts of the United States.
The result of all this is that a 27 year political career in the United States senate has come to an inglorious end. Craig may have himself to blame, as the Statesman puts it, but at some level, there are probably a few other people who should be thinking about the opinion environment they've helped to create.
And as for the Minneapolis Airport? If the Statesman is correct and the place is a known hangout for public indecency and lewdness then by all means it needs to be stopped.
But don't stop it because the people taking part are of the same sex. Do it because none of us need to answer the call of nature either alone or to help our underage children and find adults in the next stall doing something else.
The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, but the porcelain palace is another matter altogether when horny Minnesotans can't just bother to get a room.
Bond lampooned the thing a couple of days ago, and frankly the transcript doesn't add much to the whole incident; it still seems bizarre for the actions involved, the police response and - this one is really big - a united States senator absolutely an undeniably foolish enough to speak to police without a lawyer present after the senator was arrested and charged.
According to the New York Times, calls are mounting for Idaho Senator Larry Craig to resign. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has, not surprisingly, called Craig's alleged behaviour disgraceful. Romney is shooting for the conservative vote and dumping a guy facing allegations like this would be am easy call. Add that Craig was the co-chair of Romney's campaign - that is until he resigned - and you can pretty much bet little time was taken in the Romney camp to question whether or not to stand by the guy.
While the saga of the Minneapolis Airport Shuffle seems bizarre, other aspects of the story are not. The Idaho Statesman carried a story this week of a 40-year-old Idaho Republican who claims to have had oral sex with Craig in 2004. Statesman editorials have pointed out other aspects of the case, and the senator's past, that have had an unmistakable impact on the story as it has unfolded. For example, the guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge apparently came two months after the arrest and Craig kept the incident from everyone, including his family.
The Statesman capped its coverage by calling for Craig to resign. The editorial board did so citing Craig's desire to keep secrets. and his performance in a public statement after the story broke.
There are a few observations to make, now that the story has developed further.
First of all, Bond's initial reaction was wrong. This is a very serious story. It is serious because of the senator's efforts to avoid or deny dealing with it. Craig apparently has been the subject of local rumours about his sexual activity in the past. The Minneapolis arrest appears to prove the rumours.
Second of all, and as the Idaho Statesman's editorials and coverage make plain, a lack of public accountability or attempting to deny what is obvious is considerably more damaging than dealing with the issue head on.
Third of all, Craig's posturing during the Lewinsky scandal and his opposition to equal marriage measures suggest a measure of hypocrisy, something certainly Idahoans appear not willing to tolerate.
Fourth of all, and looking at it from outside the United States, we might look in bewilderment at a culture which makes an individual's sexual orientation a political issue. Promiscuous heterosexuals can apparently run the entire United States government with not much being said about it.
Fellatio in the Oval office? Not really a problem for most Americans. Most who turned on Clinton - other than hard-core Republicans - did so because of the famous lie, not for the diddling in the broom closet.
But being a gay man?
That's another story in some parts of the United States.
The result of all this is that a 27 year political career in the United States senate has come to an inglorious end. Craig may have himself to blame, as the Statesman puts it, but at some level, there are probably a few other people who should be thinking about the opinion environment they've helped to create.
And as for the Minneapolis Airport? If the Statesman is correct and the place is a known hangout for public indecency and lewdness then by all means it needs to be stopped.
But don't stop it because the people taking part are of the same sex. Do it because none of us need to answer the call of nature either alone or to help our underage children and find adults in the next stall doing something else.
The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, but the porcelain palace is another matter altogether when horny Minnesotans can't just bother to get a room.
-srbp-
Ralph Goodale on the 2005 offshore deal
Ralph Goodale is in town for the annual federal liberal caucus meeting. The Telegram grabbed him for an interview. [Photo, left, The Telegram/Rhonda Hayward]Here are some extracts:
On the flag stunt:
Shortly after, Williams yanked down the Canadian flag from the front of government buildings across the province in a protest that, even now, Goodale finds distasteful.On the deal as a whole:
"I thought then — and I still think today — that approach, that tactic, was unfortunate. I don’t agree on any occasion with any premier, whatever the issue might be, taking that particular slant to it and pulling down the flag," he said.
"Do I think it was the right deal? Yes I do," he says without hesitation.Read the rest. it's an interesting counterpoint to the false information spread local during the discussions and since.
"The problem was real, there was justice behind the provinces’ position and, as difficult as the negotiation was and as colourful as some of the tactics were, we had to keep our eye on the ball and work our way through it."
-srbp-
29 August 2007
Elections Canada reviewing Conservative election ad spending
From CanWest:
OTTAWA - Federal election watchdog William Corbett is "examining" disputed advertising expenses claimed by Conservative candidates in the last election. Elections Canada confirmed it referred the issue to Corbett last last April.From the Globe:
As Commissioner of Canada Elections, Corbett has the power to pass on cases to prosecutors.
Corbett's involvement indicates the potentially serious nature of the dispute between Elections Canada and the Conservatives over $1 million in advertising costs its candidates paid the party, after the party transferred the money to the candidates.
Violations of the Elections Act that Corbett enforces are subject to fines and imprisonment.
The Conservative Party would not comment on Corbett's involvement. The party says it is in full compliance with the Elections Act.
The Conservatives spent the maximum amount allowed by a political party during the 2006 campaign. In addition, they gave about $1.2-million to local candidates who had not spent their own personal maximum. The money was then given back to the party on the same day to buy ads in regional markets.
Elections Canada is locked in a court battle with 37 financial officers for candidates who want the government - which returns 60 per cent of the election expenses of candidates who get at least 10 per cent of the votes in their riding - to cover the expenditure.
The federal agency refused, arguing that the party, not the candidates, bought the advertising.
-srbp-
Hebron Basic Royalty: a second view
On the heels of Bond Papers' preliminary assessment of the Hebron royalty regimes, here's a look at the same issue using different oil price assumptions. please refer to the earlier post for more detail on the scenario, assumptions and caveats to be applied.
The initial assessment assumed total annual production averaging 50 million barrels per year, based on the provincial government's estimate that Hebron would produce at least 150,000 barrels per day on average. It also assumed first oil would be achieved in 2017.
As well, the initial assessment used an assumed average price for heavy crude oil at US$45 per barrel, on average for the period.
To get a more refined look, this version uses constant 2005 US dollars and takes price projections from the United States Energy Information Agency (EIA). The EIA issued its annual energy outlook in February 2007 for the year 2007 with projections to 2030.
EIA projected prices for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) delivered at Cushing Oklahoma, however, heavy oil sells at a discount compared to WTI. That discount varies over time, based on market action and has been known to run at 40% to 50% less than WTI. For the purposes of this second look, the average price per barrel for heavy crude is taken at an average of US$38 per barrel, on average over the 10 year period 2017 to 2026. That assumes a discount for heavy oil of 25%. The EIA prices ranged from US$31.88 to US$37.13.
The provincial generic royalty regime produces two years of production at 1% of gross revenue , two at 2.5%, two at 5% and four at 7.5%. The Williams basic royalty, as presented in the provincial government news release of August 22, 2007 sets the basic royalty at a constant 1% for the period before simple payout.
As can be seen, the generic royalty regime's steady progression produces significantly more royalty revenue for the provincial treasury annually than does the flat rate approach during the assumed 10 period before the project attains simple payout.
Cumulatively, the generic royalty would produce $893 million in royalty versus $190 million over the 10 year period.
There are several points to bear in mind:
1. Since there is insufficient information available publicly from the provincial government on the proposed royalty regime after simple payout, there is no way to assess whether or not there are gains after simple payout to offset the revenue foregone in the initial phase.
2. When assessing the impact of Tier 3 so-called super-royalty, it will be important to confirm whether the figure of US$50 per barrel for WTI will be expressed in any final agreement as being constant dollars (adjusted for inflation given a base year) or nominal dollars.
To illustrate the importance of this distinction, note that the EIA forecast shows WTI going above US$50 constant 2005 dollars in 2028 and then only by 17 cents. Revenue from Hebron will be actually lower than this, given the impact of the heavy oil discount.
3. Given the royalty that appears to flow in the period before simple payout, there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the $16 billion revenue figure used by the provincial government or exactly what revenues it contains in addition to royalties.
The initial assessment assumed total annual production averaging 50 million barrels per year, based on the provincial government's estimate that Hebron would produce at least 150,000 barrels per day on average. It also assumed first oil would be achieved in 2017.
As well, the initial assessment used an assumed average price for heavy crude oil at US$45 per barrel, on average for the period.
To get a more refined look, this version uses constant 2005 US dollars and takes price projections from the United States Energy Information Agency (EIA). The EIA issued its annual energy outlook in February 2007 for the year 2007 with projections to 2030.
EIA projected prices for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) delivered at Cushing Oklahoma, however, heavy oil sells at a discount compared to WTI. That discount varies over time, based on market action and has been known to run at 40% to 50% less than WTI. For the purposes of this second look, the average price per barrel for heavy crude is taken at an average of US$38 per barrel, on average over the 10 year period 2017 to 2026. That assumes a discount for heavy oil of 25%. The EIA prices ranged from US$31.88 to US$37.13.
The provincial generic royalty regime produces two years of production at 1% of gross revenue , two at 2.5%, two at 5% and four at 7.5%. The Williams basic royalty, as presented in the provincial government news release of August 22, 2007 sets the basic royalty at a constant 1% for the period before simple payout.
As can be seen, the generic royalty regime's steady progression produces significantly more royalty revenue for the provincial treasury annually than does the flat rate approach during the assumed 10 period before the project attains simple payout.Cumulatively, the generic royalty would produce $893 million in royalty versus $190 million over the 10 year period.
There are several points to bear in mind:
1. Since there is insufficient information available publicly from the provincial government on the proposed royalty regime after simple payout, there is no way to assess whether or not there are gains after simple payout to offset the revenue foregone in the initial phase.
2. When assessing the impact of Tier 3 so-called super-royalty, it will be important to confirm whether the figure of US$50 per barrel for WTI will be expressed in any final agreement as being constant dollars (adjusted for inflation given a base year) or nominal dollars.
To illustrate the importance of this distinction, note that the EIA forecast shows WTI going above US$50 constant 2005 dollars in 2028 and then only by 17 cents. Revenue from Hebron will be actually lower than this, given the impact of the heavy oil discount.
3. Given the royalty that appears to flow in the period before simple payout, there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the $16 billion revenue figure used by the provincial government or exactly what revenues it contains in addition to royalties.
-srbp-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)