How the Tories get 28% more votes thanks to CRA

Support for the ruling Conservatives went down in the last quarter compared to three months earlier. But you’d never know that if you read the news release from Corporate Research Associates.

That’s because CRA torques its news releases. Here’s how CRA presents its information in a misleading way.

1. Release early, for no apparent reason. CRA normally polls in one month and releases results early the next month. For the November polls, CRA has sometimes released results as late as December 12.

For some unknown reason, CRA released the November 2009 report a week earlier than usual.

Coincidentally it was right before a crucial by-election.

2. Release out of sequence. CRA usually releases the Newfoundland and Labrador results last, cycling through its other provincial quarterly results before getting to Newfoundland and Labrador. For some unknown reason, CRA released the NL results first AND posted them online before the end of business the day they were released.

3. Reporting as share of decideds boosts apparent results for Tories by 28%.

The chart at right shows the CRA number in red and the correct number in blue.

There’s a huge difference between the two. It shows the Tory support as being 17 and 18 percentage points higher than it actual is in CRA’s polling.

Put another way, CRA’s way of showing the numbers inflates Tory support by 28%. You get that number by taking 17 percentage points as a share of 60 percentage points. In the last result, the Tory number is artificially inflated by 24% because of the dubious reporting method.

And not everyone does it. In fact, researchers shy away from this sort of reporting because it distorts results.

Just check the other pollsters and see what they do. You’ll be surprised.

4. Hide the trends. Reporting results as a share of decideds masks the real trends, or, as in the past three quarter gives the wrong trends. Tory support isn’t up and stable, as suggested by the CRA torqued version. CRA’s own numbers - presented more accurately - show support for the Tories going down.

And what’s more it has been declining steadily since November 2007.

So what would the ordinary Newfoundlander or Labradorian think if they heard that from news media instead of the torqued version? The partisans won’t care: they’ll be leaping forward to note the Tories are still miles ahead of the opposition. Anyone using that line is likely a Tory partisan or one being spun by them.

But if ordinary people had heard the whole story presented accurately over time, would their opinion change over that same time?

Bet on it.

Now there’s also a suspicious pattern of results through 2009 – varying over nine months by less than one half of one percent - but that’s a whole other issue.

5. Don’t tell what you know and can tell.

As we know from polls released through access to information in September, CRA knows a lot more about public opinion in the province than they tell.

Opinion results vary by region of the province. Opinions sometimes run differently in one region compared to the overall picture. They also vary by age, sex, education and income.

If ordinary people knew all that, perception of continued high satisfaction across the province or increasing voter support would change and odds are it would change radically.

But people can’t know since CRA hides information from the public.

6. Don’t tell all you know. The people at CRA know they ask questions on behalf of the provincial government - yes, they pay for questions every quarter - but ethically it can’t report those results. However, the people at CRA also know that information they can’t say tells a very different story from what they do say.

Did you know last August that people were actually dissatisfied with government performance on something like health care?

Well, that story in the Telegram didn’t get as wide coverage as the original torqued news release which was carried by most media, including VOCM.

CRA could find a way to tell all they know, ethically, if they wanted to.


7. Report questions you didn’t ask. CRA routinely tells you that people in the province are completely satisfied or mostly satisfied with the ruling Conservatives.

They only problem is that is an answer they never got.

CRA regularly asks about satisfaction but they use a standard break-down that gives respondents a moderate option - “somewhat” - and a high option: “mostly”.

They report two high options that CRA never asked. You can see this in Table 3b in the link above. The question is described one way at the top and another way at the bottom.

And before you try it, remember that it is very unusual for people to respond outside the range they are given.

But if they got ones outside the range, ethically CRA would have to report the full range of responses including the information on the scale as they set it up themselves. If there were no “somewhat” they’d have to say that.

But since they don’t report that way, you can be pretty much guaranteed, CRA is torquing the meaning but changing respondent answers. The moderate category “somewhat” becomes the high end category “mostly” and “mostly” becomes “completely”.

Couple that with the data they withhold – variation by region, age sex and so on - and you can get a very different picture of the province’s people and their opinions than the one offered up by CRA every quarter.

No matter what way you slice it though, CRA results are presented in a way that is misleading and in some cases it is grossly misleading.

And when will conventional news media start questioning what they are getting when the evidence of torquing is overwhelming?

Good question.

But as you can see, there are lots of ways to goose a poll.

-srbp-

Humber Valley Resort sold

The troubled Humber Valley Resort, which last year went into bankruptcy last year, has a new buyer according to the trustees Ernst and Young.

No details have been released but the deal may close as early as December 18.

-srbp-

Now that’s really suspicious

Corporate Research Associates polls like clockwork every November.

The provincial government knows that because because they buy the quarterly omnibus.

Since 2006, CRA has released it’s November results as follows:

2006:  December 12.

2007:  December 6.

2008:  December 9.

That’s the data available on line. 

Go back before that and you will likely find the results released typically in the first week of December or later, depending on how the calendar falls in a given year.

Here’s a little challenge for you:  find the last time CRA released a quarterly omnibus poll on or about November 25, that is a week before the end of November.

Odd coincidence that there is a by-election in this province on the 26th, isn’t it?

-srbp-

Rutter to gain from US defence contract

Local manufacturer Rutter technologies will likely profit from a US Army contract worth $2.2 billion for General Dynamics’s London operations to deliver 724 LAV II light armoured vehicles by 2011.

The order is through the Army’s Security Assistance Command, meaning the vehicles are likely destined for delivery to another country, potentially Saudi Arabia under a request from 2006.

The LAV II was first produced in 1996.   The photo at right – by Sergeant Frank Hudec, Canadian Forces Combat Camera – shows a Canadian Forces LAV II (Bison) recovery vehicle.

According to the official news release the order is for 10 variants.  Although the release doesn’t give a destination that is consistent with the Saudi request for its national guard. The original order was valued at US$5.8 billion including all the associated weapons, equipment ,  spares etc.

For the past 15 years, Rutter has been producing electronics and electromechanical subassemblies for General Dynamics’ light armoured vehicle family.

This includes the LAV II vehicles as well as the more recent LAV III/Stryker vehicles (left) for the Canadian Forces and the US Army Stryker divisions.  

In 2007, Rutter landed a $1.25 million contract to build components for the RG-31 mine resistant armoured vehicle. 

The RG-31 is derived from South African Nyala, right.

 

-srbp-

Ready, Aim, Fire Truck!

Seems the use of fire trucks as polling season props just never gets old.

This one even made CBC supper hour news.

-srbp-

How many cabinet ministers…

does it take to fight a by-election?

Most of ‘em if reports from the wilds of  Terra Nova are any sign.

The politicos from all sides have piled into every available space in the last few hours leading up to polling day this Thursday. Things are so thick with volunteers that there is a danger some of them might wind up sharing a lunch table at Sheila’s.  Imagine how bad things would get for space if Tom Hedderson and Roland Butler wound up grabbing a few winks at opposite ends of a couch. 

Even Hisself has been campaigning heavily in the district, as one might expect.  Well, his truck has been sighted.

One major difference from The Straits:  only Hisself is allowed to take to the fine airwaves of voice of the cabinet minister’s talk shows to discuss the wondrous glory they are discovering in rural Newfoundland.  

At least that lesson has been learned. 

By the way, has anyone asked Kevin O’Brien what district he is in this time?

-srbp-

Danny Williams, Hydro Quebec and Churchill Falls: that was then, Part 2

From  the Telegram December 4, 2002, and a story of a rally in St. John’s:

Williams added, “Two million dollars (a day) — $60 million a month, that’s what we’re losing on the Upper Churchill and (the government is) telling us we’re living in the past. Well, there’s 39 more years of that that we got to live with. Our position here tonight … is that there should be no deal on the Lower Churchill until there’s redress on the Upper Churchill.”

No deal without redress?

What an idea.

-srbp-

Danny Williams, Hydro Quebec and Churchill Falls: that was then edition

In light of Kathy Dunderdale’s revelation of secret efforts to start talks on the Lower Churchill with Hydro Quebec as part owner, it’s interesting to go back and look at what Danny Williams used to say when other people tried the same thing.

The year is 2002.  In fact,   the release came  two days shy of one year before Williams won the 2003 general election as it turned out.

Back then, redress for the 1969 contract was an integral part of Williams’ policy and the thought of splitting one (1969 and redress) from the other (the Lower Churchill) was anathema:

…Yet, Roger Grimes has categorically stated that the Upper Churchill and Lower Churchill agreements are separate entities. In referring to this new agreement, he recently said, ‘Let's not be stuck in the past.' I say those who do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Nobody wants to see this province walk away from the only lever we have to seek some form of redress from the Upper Churchill. I don't accept Premier Grimes' position. [Emphasis added]

 

Who would have thought that a mere three years later, Danny Williams would be trying to recreate Roger Grimes’ policy to the letter?

-srbp-

The full text of the news release:

Williams calls for more
information on Lower Churchill

ST. JOHN'S, October 24, 2002 — Danny Williams, Leader of the Opposition and MHA for Humber West, today called on Roger Grimes to provide the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with additional information on the deal now being finalized with Québec to develop the Lower Churchill.

"We are asking for additional information on this deal to develop the people's resource so that we can understand exactly what is being proposed and possibly offer a few suggestions that may be able to help the process. Unfortunately, because it is being negotiated in secret, we know very little about this deal and therefore are not able to provide constructive thoughts and suggestions as to how it can be improved," Williams said in a news conference.

"The agreement-in-principle reached between Québec and Newfoundland and Labrador involves new concepts and new ideas that were not previously discussed. It is fundamentally different from the principles agreed to with Québec in 1998. In fact, this entire arrangement sprang out of nowhere just days after talks between this province and Alcoa fell apart. There has not been a single update provided to the House of Assembly. We were not able to ask a single question in the legislature on behalf of the people, which is our right and duty as the Official Opposition. The government has an obligation to provide the people with this information in order to allow meaningful debate."

Williams outlined a number of concerns with the limited details of the deal as described by Premiers Grimes and Landry. "The principles do not appear to address the future energy requirements of the province. This is further evidence that our province does not have an energy plan. Roger Grimes has stated that there will not be a transmission line to the Island. Therefore, the Island will never have access to clean, cheap and renewable hydroelectricity.

"This should be of great concern as this province presently uses almost all of the hydroelectricity at its disposal. All new developments must be powered by conventional fossil fuel energy sources. That places this province at a serious disadvantage when competing for new industrial developments, even more so now that the government of Canada plans to ratify the Kyoto Accord.

"This agreement will see all of our hydroelectricity shipped exclusively to Québec so that it can become the supplier of choice for cheap power. Québec will be in an excellent position to attract new investors. Obviously, Québec has an energy plan to attract new investors. My question is simple: what will we use to attract new investors?"

Williams also pointed out that this agreement fails to seek redress for the Upper Churchill contract with Québec, which has been a key objective for successive Liberal governments. "The Upper Churchill power project must be the most lopsided agreement ever signed in the history of Canada. Prominent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, such as Chuck Furey, a former energy minister, and Vic Young, former president and chief executive officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, have stated that any deal to develop the Lower Churchill must address the incredible loss suffered by this province through the Upper Churchill. I agree.

"Yet, Roger Grimes has categorically stated that the Upper Churchill and Lower Churchill agreements are separate entities. In referring to this new agreement, he recently said, ‘Let's not be stuck in the past.' I say those who do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Nobody wants to see this province walk away from the only lever we have to seek some form of redress from the Upper Churchill. I don't accept Premier Grimes' position."

- 30 -

Husky updates White Rose oil information information

Husky Energy announced on Monday an update to its drilling program related to the White Rose production project.

According to Husky North Amethyst E-17 (inside the area of production license 1007) drilled in 2008 has shown an estimated 60 million barrels of petroleum in place.  A further assessment of results from exploration well E-09 (within the area of production license 1006) the discovery “contains an estimate of discovered PIIP  [petroleum initially in place0 of 100 to 250 million barrels (best estimate of 170 million barrels) of light crude oil.”

That isn’t what the cbc.ca/nl online story says, by the way.

In any event, you can see both wells marked on this close-up of a map produced by the offshore regulatory board.

 

Now it is interesting to note that the legend for this map shows something rather odd when you match it up with the news release.

According to the legend – and if your humble e-scribbler is interpreting this correctly - North Amethyst E-17 is marked as an abandoned well using a symbol that appears to represent a dry hole. 

E-09 is marked as an abandoned well with oil and gas showing.

Plus, these two wells appear to be part of different structures:  North Amethyst and Hibernia Formation.

That’s something for your humble e-scribbler to follow up on with the offshore board for clarification. 

If you look at the release again, though, it doesn’t actually appear to add any new information to what has been announced previously. 

In early 2008, North Amethyst was said to hold about 70 million barrels of proven, probably and possible reserves.  That was based on delineation from 2006.

Now that isn’t the specific result from well E-17;  that was the result for the entire North Amethyst structure that is part of the satellite development. E-17 is actually quite far north of the glory hole for North Amethyst. 

This announcement on November 23 appears to deal with the structure E-09 explored  - if you read the release a certain way - back in the 1980s.  This announcement on Monday just reassesses old data.

So does the announcement on 23 November show  more oil or is it the same oil as before just described differently?  Good question.

It might be instructive to look at the fine print at the bottom of the release:

Discovered petroleum initially-in-place is that quantity of petroleum that is estimated, as of a given date, to be contained in known accumulations prior to production. The recoverable portion of discovered petroleum initially-in-place includes production, reserves and contingent resources; the remainder is unrecoverable. A recovery project cannot be defined for these volumes of discovered petroleum initially-in-place at this time. There is no certainty that it will be commercially viable to produce any portion of the resources.

Now this doesn’t mean the White Rose project and the extensions are not occurring.  Rather, there might just be some confusion in media reports about what this announcement means.

-srbp-

Five years of secret talks on Lower Churchill: the Dunderdale Audio

In early September, natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale revealed that the provincial government tried unsuccessfully for five years to get Hydro-Quebec to take an ownership stake in the Lower Churchill project.

A key component of the offers to HQ included the pledge to set aside any talk of redress for the 1969 Churchill Falls contract.

The talks were never revealed publicly until Dunderdale’s admission.

The news was all the more astonishing given that Premier Danny Williams stated repeatedly between 2001 and 2005 that he would not cut a deal with Hydro-Quebec on the Lower Churchill without some from of compensation – redress – for the inequitable 1969 contract that sees Hydro-Quebec buy virtually all the Churchill falls output for fractions of a cent per kilowatt hour.

To date, not a single conventional media outlet has reported Dunderdale’s comments.

Amazingly, not a single conventional media outlet has picked up the very obvious point about setting aside any grievance over the 1969 contract despite Williams repeated pledges to make redress a part of any Lower Churchill deal that involved Hydro-Quebec. 

That grievance is a core part of Williams’ intervention in the New Brunswick Power proposal.  On Friday, he noted the appropriateness of the Atlantic Premier’s meeting at Churchill Falls since “it symbolizes exactly what's happened to Newfoundland and Labrador at the hands of Hydro-Quebec.”

While excerpts have been posted at Bond Papers and at labradore previously, this is the first time, the audio file has been posted: Kathy Dunderdale, September 4, 2009, live on VOCM Open Line with Randy Simms (he’s the fellow pictured with mayoral chain ‘round his neck).

 

-srbp-

Related:

• “Williams miffed Hydro Quebec rejecting ownership
  stake in Lower Churchill”, September 4, 2009
• “Churchill Falls reversion fails for second time”, September 9, 2009
• “NL caught screwing with Churchill Falls:  the quotes”, September 9, 2009
• “ Hydro Quebec not an issue:  Ed Martin”, September 10, 2009
• “R.I contradicts Dunderdale; no legislative problems and state still interested in Lower Churchill power”, September 16, 2009
• “Lower Churchill unviable for the foreseeable future”, October 29, 2009 [Market assessment by industry analyst]
• “Lower Churchill long way off”,  November 9, 2009 [Comments by Premier]
• “Lower Churchill definitely a long way off”, November 18, 2009 [problems in finalizing land claims deal]
• “Danny Williams and the Philosopher’s Stone:  Control and Resources” November 17, 2009
• “Danny Williams and the Philosopher’s Stone:  Converting Principles to Cash”, November 18, 2009

The Blog versus the Lobby: a U.K. perspective

Here’s a short piece in which Paul Staines a.k.a Guido Fawkes looks at the difference between his online work and the journalists who cover politics for the mainstream media.

-srbp-

The persuasion business on Capitol Hill

From Friday’s New York Times, four views on the art of persuasion as practiced in the United States Capitol using the health reform bill as the centrepiece.

There’s reference in the article to the Johnson Treatment. To get the full effect, you can find the famous 1957 series of four photographs of then-senator Lyndon Johnson at work, by NYT photographer George Tames.

-srbp-

Kremlinology 12: Dead caribou edition

Odd -  dontcha think  - that members of the Innu Nation chose the last part of last week to challenge the provincial government on caribou hunting in an area where previously they’d been generally supportive.

Every year, usually in the spring, some Innu from Quebec cross the border and take down a few of the very few remaining caribou in the Red Wine herd.  There’s always a flurry of news coverage and righteously indignant news releases from the provincial wildlife minister.

This year, the controversy arose in November, coincidental with the Churchill Falls/Lower Churchill meeting of Atlantic Premiers and involved some of the Innu from Sheshatshiu.

The spokesperson was Peter Penashue who – again just coincidentally -  has also been front and centre lately, discussing the latest round of never-ending discussions to finalise a land claims deal that was supposedly finalised last fall and which Penashue recently said actually wouldn’t be done for another three years or so.

On the caribou issue, Penashue was hammering away at the supposed lack of consultation between the Innu and the provincial government on wildlife management.

More interestingly though, here’s how the Globe contrasted Penashue from five years ago when the Quebec Innu were doing the spring hunt and Penashue today:

"No one knows for sure if Red Wine woodland caribou were killed, or, if they were, how many," he wrote then in The Globe and Mail.

"The hunt in the Red Wine caribou range was not just an illegal protest, it was completely inconsistent with Innu values. ... Putting a threatened caribou herd at further risk can never be justified on the basis of aboriginal rights."

He said last night that "I obviously wouldn't concur with" that statement now, saying that he had lost faith in the provincial government's ability to manage the caribou.

Interestingly, Premier Danny Williams described the Innu land claims agreement as being crucial to the Lower Churchill:

Williams recently told a Telegram editorial board that if the New Dawn Agreement with the Labrador Innu isn't ratified, the Lower Churchill deal would die.

That’s from a story in the Saturday edition which isn’t on line.

The timing is rather interesting, though. 

If the Innu were really close to settling the land claims issue with the provincial government that is so crucial to the Lower Churchill project, then it seems odd the point man on the New Dawn agreement would be out on such a particular day in such a conspicuous way tackling the provincial government for its lack of consultation.

We’ll all know something is up for certain – he said perhaps only somewhat facetiously  - if the Fan Klub starts linking Penashue to Hydro Quebec and Shawn Graham.

And the Pentavaret.

-srbp-

Monopoly: Labrador Morning version

Thankfully there are still some places in the province where a sense of humour hasn’t been surgically removed.

The crowd up in Labrador took advantage of the Friday meeting in Churchill Falls to have a little fun in the midst of all the heavy discussing.

Give it a listen.  It’s funny stuff.

-srbp-

Yet more on the NB Power, Hydro Quebec, Danny Williams racket

 

1.  Shawn Graham had some strong words in advance of yesterday’s meeting of the Atlantic premiers. At the end of the meeting things were not much different.

2.  An independent panel will review the NB Power deal.

3.  A quick review of recent events will show that as far as the argument goes from Newfoundland and Labrador, something under the bed is still drooling.

4.  Note the reference in that 2006 post to selling power by avoiding Quebec.  Little did your humble e-scribbler  - or anybody else in the province for that matter – know until recently.

4.  The completely invented (i.e. false) nature of some of the comments used in the pure emotional arguments about the boogey man are glaringly obvious if you know something of the actual story.  Danny Williams said yesterday that “it's obviously symbolic that we're here today at the place where the original Upper Churchill deal was done.”  That’s in the Telegraph-Journal story in the first link.

Apparently they were in Montreal, not Churchill Falls.  Yes, Williams was being his usual hyperbolic, figurative, never-literal self, but that sort of comment is taken as fact by too many people – perhaps even Williams himself – given how little is evidently known about the 1969 boogey man in the first place.

Take as another f’rinstance, the tale of Ottawa’s role in the whole affair as described in the story about the power corridor. 

5.  And if you want a sense of the reason why hysteria, fantasy and emotion are so powerful, consider Russell Wangersky’s observations on the nature of modern media and the audience they work hard to serve.

We're conditioning ourselves to expect the crack cocaine of immediate gratification - and when we can't get that short, sharp shock immediately, we move on to somewhere where we can.

Indeed we are.

And his words are worth the time given that so much of what he says is both a cause and a symptom of a very current issue in the province. It’s a topic tackled around these parts before:

On another level, though, what the Premier meant in that case is actually irrelevant. What it is simply worth noting that not a single reporter thought it worth asking a simple question. Not one thought to ask what he meant, just to be clear. Inquisitiveness - supposedly at the core of the journalistic profession, let alone the source of our species' progress - was absent.

Not one wanted to know.

Reporters reflect the society in which they work. There's no way of knowing if the Internet has changed the way people are thinking or if it merely facilitated a trend already present. Television was decried as an idiot box and in some respects, Carr and others are simply transferring the epithet to the box sitting on or under many of our desks.

The source of the change is not as important as the consequences of the shift, the lessening desire to know things.

Chenza at court, the court of silence, as the Tamarians would say.

-srbp-

Danny Williams, Hydro Quebec and the Lower Churchill

For the record – via labradore – with full audio of natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale's September 4 comments to randy Simms of VOCM Open Line to follow:

Y’know, the Premier has gone to Quebec, and gone to Premier Charest, and, y’know, we’ve had NALCO(R) visit y’know Hydro-Quebec, I’ve been meeting with Ministers and so on. And we say to them, okay, y’know, we’ll set the Upper Churchill to one side, but, y’know, let’s sit down and have a talk about this Lower Churchill piece.

Y’know, we know that we have to have a win-win situation here.

Because we, as I’ve said earlier this week, we know that if you don’t have win-win you have win and poison pill. Because that’s what we’ve got with the Upper Churchill. So we can have a win-win situation.

We know that if you come in here as an equity player that you have to have a good return on your investment. And we want you to have a good return on your investment.

But it also has to be a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now we have been with that message back and forth [i.e. to Hydro-Quebec] for five years. No, sir. No, sir. There is no takeup on that proposal.

That’s right folks. 

Danny Williams tried unsuccessfully and in secret for five years to sell a chunk of the Lower Churchill to Hydro Quebec with no redress on the Churchill Falls contract. Oddly enough that put Williams efforts at selling the Lower Churchill – without compensation for Churchill falls right back to around the time he said no deal was possible without compensation.

As CTV reported in April 2005:

Williams reiterated Monday that any deal with Quebec will have to include some kind of redress to the province for the unfair split of profits from the Upper Churchill.

But he offered no specifics on what redress could entail.

Update: In December 2002, Williams told a crowd gathered to protest a deal on the Lower Churchill that

“Our position here tonight … is that there should be no deal on the Lower Churchill until there’s redress on the Upper Churchill.”

That was reported in the Telegram on December 4, 2002 in a story titled “Tories rally – election style”.

-srbp-

The Tempest Tick-Tock: key events in the Hydro Quebec and NB Power tirades

It helps to put a timeline on things sometimes.

2006

May:  While a bill that is supposed to create the energy corporation is introduced as the first bill of the session, the text of the bill doesn’t show up until near the end of the spring 2006 session. The record for the bill is bizarre.  It shows the bill passed through second reading and committee stage four days after it passed first reading.

2007

June 4 and 5:   In a couple of short sessions and with very little public debate and discussion, the legislature passes two bills revamping the hydro corporation and creating the energy corporation.  This amounts to a massive  reworking of the province’s energy corporation, originally created in 2006.  

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro forms the initial core of the company but internal structure  creates series of interlocking directorates of subsidiaries.

NL Hydro retains exemption given in 2006  to EPCA restriction that electricity producers in province delivering to customers in province may only be engaged in electricity activities.  PUB must still set Hydro rates to ensure profitability.

At some point in the re-organization, CF(L)Co becomes a subsidiary of NALCOR instead of CFLCo.  This makes NLH – the Lower Churchill proponent – equal within the internal corporate structure  to the company that was once its subsidiary.

June 13 and 14: In a high-speed process and with very little debate or public scrutiny, the  House of Assembly amends the Electrical Power Control Act 1994 (EPCA) to lay out method for making water management agreement where two projects exist on same watercourse.   Amendments to take effect on date set by cabinet. 

2008

June 3 and 4:   At high speed and with very little debate, the legislature approves major changes to the energy corporation legislation. Includes significant changes to the rules governing creation of subsidiaries, as well as massive changes to the province’s Access to Information laws to shield the company activities from scrutiny.  Cabinet retains the ability to transfer any function to the energy corporation it wishes to transfer, regardless of what it is about. 

June 3 and 4:  At high speed and with very little debate, the legislature passes a water rights management bill later revealed to strip CF(L)Co of its lease to Churchill Falls.

December 16:  Surprise seizure of hydroelectricity generation and transmission assets of three private sector companies on the island of Newfoundland (AbitibiBowater, Fortis and ENEL).  Assets assigned to NL Hydro.  NALCOR given responsibility for all government negotiations with Abitibi on compensation.

2009

January 16:  EPCA  amendments made in 2007 come into force.  Amendments are gazetted along with regulations but there is no news release or other public notice.

April:  Talks start on water management agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and CF(L(Co) .

August 31:  Ed Martin (CEO of provincial energy corporation) tells Toronto Star that he :

… doesn't see the Quebec issue as a major stumbling block, as regulation requires the province to allow access to its grid in return for a set tariff. Hydro Quebec and Nalcor are just working out the details. 

Any costs to Ontario would build in the price of that tariff, but what's most important is how that final cost would compare to the next-best alternative. [Emphasis added]

01 Sep:  Emergency session of the legislature called for September 8 to deal with amendments to 2008 water rights legislation. 

Amendments and session are given rather benign description initially:

"This amendment is necessary in order to facilitate an agreement between Nalcor Energy or its subsidiary and CF(L)Co," said Minister Dunderdale. "As these negotiations are currently underway, we wanted to get into the House early and make this amendment to avoid any uncertainty to the parties involved. We thank the opposition for their cooperation on this matter and we look forward to further discussion on the amendment when the House reconvenes next week."

03 Sep:  In a speech to a national audience, Premier attacks Hydro Quebec for supposedly throwing up roadblocks to lower Churchill development.

04 Sep:  Dunderdale reveals the full  - the real - story.  (Locals media have not covered Dunderdale’s comments two and a half months later)

09 Sep:   Amendments pass in House emergency session.  True nature of story is revealed in comments during the debate:

“They [Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation lawyers and directors] felt that we had extinguished their rights to the whole watershed area that they require to produce electricity in the Upper Churchill and that would cause them some concern,” said [natural resources minister Kathy] Dunderdale.

Unspecified time in September:  Deal reached with CF(L)Co on water management.

October 23:  According to NALCOR, this is the date the CF(L)Co board met and rejected the deal agreement.

October 29:  NB Power deal.

-srbp-

The Genie with the Centre-Parted Hair

There are strange things done ‘neath the midnight sun but nothing quite as curious as the goings on the campaign trail in Terra Nova district last week.

Liberal leader Yvonne Jones apparently found that Tory leader Danny Williams was showing up at places where she had booked meetings or scheduled visits but always about an hour in advance.

Maybe he was there to dispense a little wisdom.  Maybe he was campaigning in the time-honoured tradition of Newfoundland politicians.

Anyway, Williams and his entourage were gone by the time Jones showed up.

In one case – as it goes in versions have arrived at the doorstep of your humble e-scribbler - Jones had scheduled a private meeting with one business in the district.

The operators of the business were surprised to find Williams on their doorstep an hour before the meeting proudly announcing he was there and ready to meet.

No one was expecting him – apparently - since there’d been no contact about his arrival or having a meeting with him.

Maybe Danny should try the same approach with Hydro Quebec.

-srbp-

The Philosopher’s Stone at Work: the Hebron fiscal agreement

Consistent with government policy of selling off energy assets – converting principle to cash - clause 8.4 (A) of the Hebron Fiscal Agreement exempts the NALCOR oil and gas corporation from provisions of the agreement that allow government to treat the company differently from other offshore oil companies.

Sections 8.2 and 8.3 shall not apply to OilCo as long as OilCo is a Crown
corporation of the Province.

The words “as long as” suggest a provision to cover off the potential sale of NALCOR’s oil and gas subsidiary.

It wouldn’t be necessary unless the current administration anticipated selling the asset at some point.

-srbp-

Related: 

• “Danny Williams and the Philosopher’s Stone: Control and Resources”
• “Danny Williams and the Philosopher’s Stone: Converting Principles to Cash”

Kachanoski new MUN President

Memorial University Board of Regents chairman Bob Simmonds announced today that the board selected Dr. Gary Kachanoski as the new president and vice-chancellor of the university.

The experienced academic administrator and internationally renowned scientist will take up the post in July 2010.

This ends a two year search process which include an appalling level of political interference by a previous education minister in the university’s autonomy.

Changing a number of key players involved in the previous fiasco, including the appointment of Simmonds as regents chairman, got the process back on track and let it proceed with evident integrity.

The result is a solid choice well ahead of the forecast conclusion to the process in 2010.

-srbp-

Danny Williams and the Philosopher’s Stone: Converting Principles to Cash

 

“It's giving away their future.”

Danny Williams on the NB Power sale

__________________________________________________________________

At the heart of a little flame war last week on one local blog came a rather surprising nugget of hard news that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians likely have never seen and may well never see covered at all – let alone in depth -  by local media.

Telegram blog writer Geoff Meeker noted a comment by Premier Danny Williams in the House of Assembly on April 30, 2008.  In answering an opposition question about putting $100 million into debt reduction for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the Premier said:

It was a previous Liberal government that wanted to actually privatize Hydro. This particular government wants to strengthen Hydro, wants to make it a very valuable corporation: a corporation that will ultimately pay significant dividends back to the people of this Province; a corporation that perhaps some day may have enough value in its assets overall as a result of the Hebron deal and the White Rose deal, possible Hibernia deal, possible deals on gas, possible deals on oil refineries and other exploration projects, where hopefully we might be able to sell it some day and pay off all the debt of this Province, and that would be a good thing. [Emphasis added]

That’s right.

Danny Williams spoke publicly about selling off some or all of the province’s energy corporation to pay down public debt.

CBC’s provincial affairs reporter David Cochrane added to the discussion online and offered some additional insight into the Premier’s thinking:

We pulled him outside for a scrum to ask about it. Even before we asked a question he clarified his comments. He said he misspoke in the legislature. He wasn't talking about selling Nalcor. He was talking about selling the individual assets it acquires.

For example, if the Hebron stake is eventually worth 5-billion [sic] dollars and someone wants to buy, Williams said he would consider selling it to reduce debt.

That was consistent with past comments he had made when the government rolled out its plan to revamp Hydro into an energy company.

As established in the first part of this series – Control and Resources -  that isn’t what Williams had been saying consistently at all.

To the contrary, selling any asset of the energy corporation would run directly counter to the stated goal of acquiring control over the province’s resources and hence its development and future.  Being masters of our own destiny is tied directly to resource ownership.

But Cochrane was right:  Williams had talked about selling some or all of the energy corporation before.  As Cochrane showed, Williams had mentioned the idea in October 2005 in a story Cochrane had done on Ed Martin’s arrival as chief executive officer of the fledgling corporation that would be eventually known as NALCOR Energy:

Williams says his top priority is for the company to become an investor in every form of energy development – or, as he calls it, to get a piece of the action.

"I would like to see Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro gain a strong asset base, so in fact then the government of Newfoundland, as a shareholder, also benefits from that asset base," he said.

…

"If energy continues to grow in value as it is now, perhaps what we could now buy for a billion dollars could be worth $10- or $20 billion in 10 or 20 years' time, which means that those assets have a value whereby we could pay off our debt," Williams said. [Emphasis added]

The 2005 comment is not as clear as the 2008 version in the legislature but they are along the same lines. 

And certainly in 2005, Williams wasn’t splitting hairs over regulated (electricity) versus non-regulated (oil and gas) assets as Williams apparently did in the unreported portion of the media scrum in April 2008.  As Cochrane described it:

Williams did not say he would sell off all the assets (i.e power generation and transmission capacity). He was talking energy assets in the oil and gas sector.

Now while it doesn’t appear that Williams has said this “many, many times” as Cochrane asserted elsewhere in that comment, there is no question Williams has spoken of selling off some or all of the energy corporation in order to pay down public debt, if the price was right.

Nor is it the only reference to selling energy assets, even though the idea is not contained in the energy plan or the campaign manual.   In a clause of the New Dawn agreement, released in September 2008, one provision covers the potential sale of the Newfoundland and Labrador interest in the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation:

On the one hand, the Williams administration has a clear policy connecting the principle of control of energy resources with ownership of equity stakes in energy projects.

Yet at the same time,  the Premier has spoken publicly about the potential that these assets could be sold to reduce public debt.

And on top of that, an agreement with the Innu Nation includes a specific provision covering the potential sale of the Newfoundland and Labrador majority shares in the company that operates the  Churchill Falls power complex.

Clearly the two notions cannot live in the same space.

Well, they can actually if one considers another statement by Danny Williams which describes another aspect of his political philosophy:

What I said before and I said going in, this is about principles, but it's also about money as well. At the end of the day, the promise and the principle converts to cash for the bottom line for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That’s a comment Danny Williams tossed out in November 2007 during the racket about broken political promises with Stephen Harper.

Williams used the word “principles” in the familiar sense.  A “principle” is a fundamental rule.  A “principle” may also be expressed as a value like openness, honesty, or integrity.

The dispute was a matter of principle, in that sense; a promise made is a commitment to act that must be fulfilled.  If someone breaks his or her word without good cause or explanation, the relationships between people can no longer function.

But “principle” in the way Danny Williams used it on that occasion in 2007 identifies the “principles” as nothing more substantive than the basis for a claim of damages or the source of a grievance.  Relief or compensation can be had by identifying a sum of money, or, as Williams puts it: “the principle converts to cash.”

The notion is hardly surprising for a lawyer who spent a lot of time arguing for damages for his clients, even if there are few others who would – on the face of it – accept that principles of any kind can be transformed to coin.

Yet Danny Williams obviously operates on the belief that he has a political Philosopher’s Stone in his pocket.  Like its legendary alchemical predecessor that converted base metal to gold, this stone would convert electricity and oil into dollars.

The curious thing is that none of this has been reported clearly and consistently within the province.   It is doubtful that a majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know anything but the old and familiar notion that links control of resources with the future. 

Yet there is no mistaking that the Williams administration has another policy firmly in place  - at exactly the same time - which would allow for the sale of resources in a fashion that directly contradicts the notion of control on which the administration claims popular support for its policies.

Little wonder in April 2008 then that Danny Williams responded so strongly when reporters asked him to scrum on his statements.  Again, as the CBC’s David Cochrane described it:

We pulled him outside for a scrum to ask about it. Even before we asked a question he clarified his comments. He said he misspoke in the legislature. He wasn't talking about selling Nalcor. He was talking about selling the individual assets it acquires. [Emphasis added]

In the end, the reporters in the scrum opted to report nothing of the comments at all, including the Premier’s “clarification.”

Regardless of what the reporters decided on that busy work day, the Premier’s comments and the unsustainable internal contradiction in them are obvious in both the Premier’s criticism in the legislature of Hydro privatisation on the one hand and then the expressed interest in flipping assets to pay off debt on the other.  It doesn’t matter how often the Premier said it.

The comments take on new importance though given the Premier’s recent attack on the sale of NB Power to Hydro Quebec. 

And at the same time, as the province faces tight provincial finances, the question of exactly what is government policy on energy, control and sale of resources to meet financial needs deserves to be answered clearly and unequivocally.

Such a question can only be answered, however, if someone deigns to ask it.

-srbp-

The fix is in

As of September 22, the presidential search committee at Memorial University had 40 names to review and two whole stages of sifting left before they came up with a name.

The time line in September 2009 was that the “committee and consultants plan to continue efforts in the coming months with a view to concluding a successful search by early 2010.”

Well, something shifted, big time.

According to CBC, there is an announcement scheduled for noon on Wednesday.

All things considered the sudden conclusion of the whole exercise is rather odd.

Sounds very much like a convenient fit turned up out of the blue. 

Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time that organized, professional searches were interrupted by outside interference from a political source in the current administration.

Maybe Andy Wells is getting tired of the PUB.

Unconspiratorial Update:  There’s an excellent chance this thing was done professionally and the choice will be very good, unlike the political mess the last time. 

How can you tell?  Lips are zipped all over town.  When it’s political, everyone knows what’s up.

Meanwhile, some eagle-eyed observer noted all the government appointees to the board of regents whose term expired in October or whose term will expire this December.

-srbp-

Danny Williams and the Philosopher’s Stone: Control and Resources

“Securing equity means having greater leverage to control our own destiny.”

“The principle of making our own way and taking control of our resources is the right one.”

Two quotes from the Speech from the Throne,

House of Assembly, March 2008

_______________________________________________________________

Control is a key principle in Danny William’s political philosophy.

Control of the province’s natural resources is a core point in most of his administration’s public statements on oil, natural gas and electricity.

The word occurs twice in his recent letter to Shawn Graham about the proposal to sell NB Power to Hydro Quebec. There’s the reference to “New Brunswickers who no longer control their energy destiny.” Then there’s the contrast: “ But we took control of our own destiny and Nalcor Energy is now a crown jewel in our province’s energy assets.”

Williams also raised the concern about control of transmission routes supposedly resting in the hands of Hydro Quebec and of the control of rates resulting from the sale of NB Power.

Energy and control go together, as Williams made clear when he announced in 2006 that the provincial government would “go-it-alone” on the Lower Churchill. he made the following comments in the House of Assembly on May 8, 2006:

“...but the big message here is that we are masters of our own destiny, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are in control of this project for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians."

- "By taking the lead we are in full control of the project, unlike the circumstance with the last government; that project, basically, was going to be controlled by Quebec. It would have been marketed, it would have been financed, the transmission would have been done by Quebec. The control of the project, the project management, would have been done by Quebec. As well, if there had been an overrun on the project, the last Lower Churchill project that was proposed by the Grimes government, in fact, we could have lost the project; because, if there had been an overrun, we would not have been in a position to be able to finance it….”

But control is not just a principle behind energy initiatives. Being “masters of our own destiny” is the same idea in other words and it crops up repeatedly in Danny Williams’ speeches and comments as an idea central to government policy.

Control is a principle of the administration’s policy. It is a guiding rule, an essential quality, or the basis for action.

Control in the Energy Plan

The relationship between resource control and equity is established clearly in the Conservative party’s 2003 election platform.

The section on resource development puts it this way:

The power to control development of offshore oil and gas is of little value unless the Province has the know-how to deal with technical issues and field assessments equivalent to the expertise of the major oil companies, and sufficient ownership in production licences to influence development decisions.

• A Progressive Conservative government will either restructure Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as an energy company, or create a new Energy corporation, with a mandate to retain equity in the Province's oil and gas resources. This will be done on a go-forward basis.

The relationship is mapped out more plainly in the 2007 energy plan released in time for the 2007 election campaign. So important is control that it is the second principle guiding the plan, after sustainability:

Our Principles

1. Sustainability

…

2. Control

We will exercise appropriate control over the development of our resources to ensure they are managed and used in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will assume an ownership interest in the development of our energy resources where it fits our strategic long-term objectives.

The idea is repeated again in what, by now, is a familiar formulation in a discussion of energy resource management (p.13):

We will take more control than in the past over the development of these resources and the benefits they generate.

Having identified the importance of control and the connection to management, management, the plan then re-affirms that equity stakes in energy projects are the first lever used “to ensure sound and effective management and to maximize benefits over the long term.” (p.18)

Control and equity stakes are thus intimately connected in the Conservative philosophy.

The 2003 campaign platform identified the key role to be played by a new energy corporation in holding the equity stakes and thereby serving as the means by which the provincial government would exercise the sought-after control of energy resources.

As well, the energy corporation has other key control responsibilities set out in the energy plan:

- “If the Provincial Government [sic] lifts the moratorium [on small hydro projects], it will institute a policy that the Energy Corporation will control and coordinate the development of small hydro projects that meet economic thresholds and are viable for an isolated island system.”

- “One of our goals is to maximize our benefits from resource developments. We believe this means the Energy Corporation should control the development of all small hydro developments for the benefit of all electricity users and determine whether to do this alone or with private sector partners.”

- “To maximize these benefits [from wind power], the Provincial Government believes the Energy Corporation should control the development of all wind projects and determine when to develop alone or with private sector partners.”

- “Due to the strategic importance of generation and transmission to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, the province, through NLH [Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro], will retain ownership and control of its existing transmission and generation assets”

To anyone familiar with the Williams administration, none of this will be new. in fact, it will be so familiar that one might wonder the point of such an extensive recitation of the relationship between the principle of control and the idea of equity stakes in Danny Williams’ philosophy.

That will become clear in the second instalment of this series.

-srbp-

AIMS confirms the population trends

The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies today released its updated 1998 demographic study for the Atlantic provinces. 

Not surprisingly they confirmed the demographics trends for this province over the next three decades that have been known publicly since the early to mid-1990s in this province.

"While slower growth and aging affect the labour force, and hence a region's ability to generate output and income, they also affect virtually all other aspects of the economy. They affect patterns of saving and household consumption, and hence investment. They have differential effects on sales, production, and investment levels in different industries, and their impact thus falls unevenly on different areas within a region. They affect the tax bases from which provincial governments must draw revenue, and they affect the demands for government program expenditures. Work carried out in other contexts suggests the feasibility and importance of anticipating the effects of population change on government expenditures."

Those trends and the financial implications for government are nothing knew for regular Bond Papers readers.

This sort of information is one of the reasons why this corner of the Intern long ago branded government spending as unsound and unsustainable.

It just took them three years to figure it out.

-srbp-

Lower Churchill definitely a long way off

Danny Williams and his little band might be off to New York to push the Lower Churchill but those savvy people in the Big Apple will know the project is increasingly nothing more than a cute little video with Ron Hynes’ voiceover.

The aboriginal land claims agreement said last year to be finalised and set for a ratification vote in January is still mired in the negotiation and ratification process.

Canadian Press is reporting that Innu deputy grand chief Peter Penashue said:

"Government and the aboriginal people have signed off ... and that will ultimately go for ratification in the very near future."

But Penashue said it could be three or four years before the agreement winds its way through federal channels and is ultimately approved and voted on by his people.

Three or four years before it gets to a vote.

That’s a long way from this fall, which was Penashue’s prediction in June 2009.

Danny Williams was right when he told the Telegram editorial board recently that the project would not happen in the near term.

One of the reasons for the delay in finishing the land claims agreement is that only two of the three parties necessary for a finished product were involved.   Despite the provincial government’s  decades of experience with land claims agreements, including lengthy negotiations on the Innu claim, these talks ignored the federal government entirely. 

"At one point we were looking at splitting the agreement" into provincial and federal areas of jurisdiction, he said.

…

"Subsequently, it has been agreed to by lawyers that (provincial issues) can't be separate from the feds because the feds have the constitutional powers and authority to finalize these agreements," Penashue said.

There’s no explanation why the provincial government and the Innu embarked on the bilateral talks knowing that legally there was no way to cut Ottawa out.  What legal genius thought otherwise?

This is further proof that the problems and delays in the Lower have nothing to do with the politically driven fiction coming from the Premier’s Office  - and faithfully repeated by some others - that the whole Lower Churchill project is buggered up because of Hydro Quebec.  

There’s a reason why your humble e-scribbler labelled the New Dawn announcement the Matshishkapeu Accord.  The whole thing is a pile of wind, from some of its initial details to the  sheer nonsense that the whole thing was done.

The Premier heralded the thing last fall as doing everything except curing scoliosis. The deal was not just an important step toward the Lower Churchill, it was an “extremely important” one and before the already breathless sentence ran out of breath let’s add that it was also a “significant” step too.  Like an important step  - let alone an extremely important step  - wouldn’t also be significant unless that was added to the sentence as well.

Anyway, the overblown language turns out to have been a very good indicator that the deal was not so much of a deal after all.  Remember the Rule of Opposites?

After it was announced, the Matshishkapeu Accord  quietly slipped away into MIA Land.  The ratification vote was cancelled amid rumblings of major problems with the deal that needed reworking. 

-srbp-

The first forecast for negative economic growth in 2010

According to the Conference Board of Canada’s latest economic projections for the provinces,  province’s that are down this year are going up next year.

All except one.

Newfoundland and Labrador’s economy is forecast to shrink 3.6% this year but the Board has now said that the local economy will also contract another half percent in 2010.  The Board doesn’t anticipate a return to growth in Newfoundland and Labrador until 2011.

It put Newfoundland and Labrador in a category of its own. That province is expected to post the biggest GDP decline this year at 3.6% and is the only provincial economy forecast by the Conference Board to contract (by 0.5%) in 2010. The board said the province was hurt by declines in forestry, mining and manufacturing this year, and offshore oil drilling is expected to remain at depressed levels next year.

Incidentally, VOCM missed the importance of that entirely.

The forecast contraction for Newfoundland and Labrador this year is the largest in the country for 2009, incidentally.

Now all of that make as a complete mockery of the line coming from local politicians.  After the collapse last year, the Premier talked about the province being protected by an economic bubble last year.  That turned out to be a version of the St. John’s Harbour bubble apparently.

And just within the past couple of weeks, environment minister Charlene Johnson was out telling a local Rotary Club audience about how the province was well positioned to weather the economic storm due to the wonderful things done by the crowd she’s a part of.

Well that’s another issue.

There’s no question however, the economic bubble was entirely fictitious.

The Conference Board projection is in line with the actual oil revenue data for the first half of 2009 that Bond Papers brought you exclusively earlier this week. it shows royalties are down 57% for the same period in 2008 and that they are 15% below the government’s own forecast thus far.

Oil production is also down.  In the first six months of fiscal 2009, production is  running about 29% below the same period in 2008.

Add to that personal income tax. Last year, personal income tax (PIT) generated $899,460, 000 in government revenue.  That works out to $4, 037 for each of the 220, 300 people working in the province, full-time and part-time.  You can find those figures using information in the provincial government’s own financial documents tabled with the budget last spring.

Government lowballed the number for its 2009 budget, projecting PIT at $786 million.  That’s despite expected growth in income  - yes, they forecast more income going around - and a decline in employment of only 2,000.  That $786 million is about $100 million below what the government’s own numbers would work out to be, incidentally.  That’s why the ones actually published in the Estimates are said to be low-balled.

Job losses are currently running higher than forecast.  In October it was 5,400 for the same month in 2008.  Now word publicly on wages but working with the provincial government’s figures and the actual performance you would bring personal income tax in at around $870 million.  (4037 X 215,000)  Now that’s a rough estimate.

Even if PIT went to the same number as last year by some quirk, it still wouldn’t offset the forecast decline in oil revenues and the drop that came in mining and the forestry sector.

The government is on track to get the budget they forecast.  There won’t be any surprises, like discovering that despite all the posturing and puffing about being a have province, the government actually opted to switch formulas and collect Equalization in 2008.  They did that, incidentally, five months after Danny Williams made his great “have province” speech at the November Tory fundraiser. It was a spectacular poll goose but it was also a fraud since the provincial government knew the numbers and cabinet knew that it would not make its Equalization election until the following March.  There is more to being a have province than a political speech, a poll goose and a rip-off video.

But that, too is another issue.

There are serious issues to be faced in the months ahead.  The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are only just now starting to see the signs.

-srbp-

What Hydro Quebec gets in the Maritimes

Quebec Premier Jean Charest revealed today that Hydro Quebec has started negotiations to take over electricity delivery on Prince Edward island.

He made the announcement at a major energy conference in Boston that brought together every major actor in the energy business on the north-eastern part of the continent. 

Hot on the heels of news about Hydro Quebec’s deal to buy NB Power, this is hardly surprising. 

Hydro Quebec has seen its revenues from electricity exports shrink by about 30% over last year.  There’s little chance of that rebounding in the near term as the Untied States gropes its way out of a recession.

There’s hardly a better place for Hydro Quebec to go hunting for new customers than New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.  In both places, electricity rates are in no danger of dropping.  Hydro Quebec has a pile of power and no place to sell it. they’ve also got the cash ready to go.

Sounds like a match made in heaven.

Hydro Quebec has deep enough pockets to buy up the financial mess known as NB Power, deliver electricity rate relief to New Brunswick consumers and make good money when a hunk of Quebec electricity would normally be making a better return somewhere else.

Watch for the same sort of deal in Prince Edward Island.

It works for everyone.  What’s been missing in all the second rate commentary, hype and pure political bullshit flowing in Atlantic Canada these past few weeks is that Hydro Quebec is cutting a straight up business deal in the Maritimes.  They are in business to make money and make money they will.

When the American markets rebound Hydro Quebec will be ready with its existing generating capability, the 8,500 megawatts in development through wind and hydro in Quebec, Point LePreau,  and the hydro in New Brunswick and the wind generation that has been and will be developed in both PEI and New Brunswick.

All of that is considerably closer to American markets than the Lower Churchill.  It will be shipped over existing infrastructure.  Any new power lines that are needed will be shorter and considerably less costly to develop than either new lines through Quebec from Labrador.  let’s not even talk about the so-called Anglo-Saxon route.  It was ludicrously expensive in 1965 and it remains so the better part of a half century later.

There’s no surprise, in all this, that the Newfoundland and Labrador energy corporation and Premier Danny Williams decided to stay away from a meeting of anybody who is anybody in energy in New England and Eastern Canada.

Not only would there be the embarrassment of being in the room for Charest’s announcement, they’d also have to spend two days with a bunch of people who know the real score on the Lower Churchill.  These people just don’t have the time or the inclination to have smoke blown up their backsides.  They’ve got better things to do.

No surprise either that the same day the big news breaks in Boston, the provincial government here announced a one day junket to New York to talk about an imaginary future energy project  and other what-ifs with an unknown group of people.  They’ll turn out for the free nosh, if nothing else, and back home the locals can just cover this as if it was news.

Hydro Quebec went to the Maritimes and it’s been picking up assets, customers and future earning potential on both sides of the border along the way.

Danny, Kathy and Ed are going to New York for a few hours.

Bet they won’t come back with much more than a few souvenir pictures of Danny, Ed, Kathy and Liz standing in front of the Ed Sullivan Theatre.

It’s right around the corner from the Hilton on Avenue of the Americas.

-srbp-

Another good Lower Churchill question

Ok.

So the political theatre that is the Lower Churchill project is now pulling into a another location already mapped out on the route.

It is a route pre-determined by amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act in 2007 but only put into force this past January.

That’s right.

2007.

Two whole years ago.

Because the provincial government’s energy corporation couldn’t reach a deal on water management on the Churchill River with Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation, the whole thing is headed off to the public utilities board where the Premier’s hand-picked appointee and a couple of other people will oversee the imposition of an agreement.

Hands up anyone who thinks the water management agreement that inevitably results from this process will not be exactly what the government’s energy corporation wants it to be.

And what exactly makes this some sort of giant obstacle supposedly thrown by  Hydro Quebec to the development of a project which – as of this moment – has no customers, no financing and which, by the Premier’s own version of things is not even close to being started?

Good question.

-srbp-

How lucky are we, again?

Energy analyst Tom Adams recently wrote that “Newfoundlanders are lucky that Nalcor, their Crown energy company, is not out in the market the trying to sell high cost power right now.”

Yep.

We’re lucky alright.

Really lucky.

No one would ever head to New York City to try and flog a very expensive project at a time when energy prices are low and capital is really hard to come by to build the project in the first place.

Not on your life.

“We will showcase Newfoundland and Labrador as a prospective location for investment and focus specifically on our province’s potential as a long-term producer of competitive and reliable green energy through the Lower Churchill project.”

-srbp-

It’s Fire Truck Season now?

Well if Tom Hedderson is putting on his firefighter’s hat to go visit Joan Burke, you know it’s either to announce another fire truck, officially kick off the November sweeps month with the government’s official pollster or both.

At this rate fire trucks could be the key to keeping those government-paid polls artificially government-goosed.

Zombie News Update:  Not only did Tom show up to announce a fire truck, he also showed up to announce money for capital works that have already been completed or which will be completed in a couple of weeks.

Holy blatant poll goose Batman.

Talk about the hypocrisy of recycling old money announcements for fairly blatant political gain.

 

-srbp-

Flu Trends – using the Internet to spot emerging health concerns

By now some of you will be familiar with Google’s Flu Trends, a website that shows in general form, the intensity of Google search activity for keywords related to influenza, by country and region.

The trending analysis is shown both as a map and in a graph which you can access by clicking on the country and then the region within the country.

That’s the one for Newfoundland and Labrador, at right.

The lighter blue lines represent the search patterns in prior years.  The dark blue one is 2009.

Now right away, the big, sudden jump might catch your attention.

But look for a second in the period just before that.  Note the steady increase in activity.  That means that within the province – starting in early September there was an increase in google searches in this province using terms related to influenza. 

That includes symptoms.  Someone types in “aches + fever + cough”  or something along those lines and then clicks to see what websites come back in the search results.

Increasing numbers of people are using the Internet to search for information about medical conditions.  They could be looking to diagnose themselves – not a good idea – or for things they know, like colds and flu, they may just be looking for some simple information on treating their symptoms.

Not surprisingly there is an online journal –started a decade ago – that is dedicated to health research and the Internet.  There are even terms for the study of information trends online.  Infodemiology is basically the Google Flu trends sort of thing.  It’s about finding and analysing trends in information about health, how it is found and how it is passed around.   Infoveillance is taking all the information gathered in infodemiology and figuring out what it means.

To get a sense of what this is about, you can skim through a slide show by Gunther Eysenbach, a physician and associate professor of health policy at the University of Toronto. Dr. Eysenbach demonstrates how it is possible to use the Internet to gather information both formally through things like online surveys or by collecting tweets and similar information information to spot trends.

The value of this form of intelligence gathering and analysis should be pretty obvious:  those responsible for delivering health care in an emergency can spot any trends and hopefully be prepared.  It’s like monitoring seismic activity or other geological information to see if there is a way of predicting earthquakes. online surveillance for these health purposes is also very similar in some respects to police agencies that use similar pattern-searches  to get advance warning of terrorist or other criminal activity.

Analysing the information in things like tweets can also be a good source of feedback for health policy experts as to what information is in demand or what information is being shared.  Eysenbach conducted a study of tweets during the spring outbreak of H1N1.  In a sample of 400 tweets drawn from a total of 300,000 collected by his system, Eysenbach found that

News posts were the most common type of information shared (46%) followed by public health education (19.18%) and H1N1-related humour (18.25%). 36.75% of all posts quoted news articles verbatim and provided URLs to the source. 

Take that, CNN and USA Today!

His research was prompted by news reports that suggested social media  - like Twitter and facebook - was fuelling rumour, misinformation and hysteria and thereby feeding a panic about H1N1.

This is just one aspect of a much larger change currently underway in society. In researching social media and health issues, your humble e-scribbler came across trending analysis using the Internet.

Fascinating, as Spock would say.

-srbp-

AG report makes up old recommendation, gives no real update on small business program

The section of the recently released auditor general update report that deals with small business fund in the provincial innovation department relies on a recommendation that wasn’t contained in the initial report.

All the same, the report claims that the department has begun complying with the AG recommendations for a 2007 review.

The invented recommendation and supposed compliance are also included – apparently – among the 80% of the recommendations the 2009 AG report claims have been acted on within two years.

According to the 2009 update, the lone recommendation on the small business fund was this:

The Department should ensure all required documentation is on file to
support applications, payments for funding and monitoring.

But the original report – released in early 2008 - contained a total of five recommendations, none of which was the one cited by auditor general John Noseworthy in 2009:

The third real recommendation – related to security for disbursed funds - is particularly important since one of the companies apparently reviewed by the initial audit has since gone belly up.

There is no reference to the bankruptcy in the 2009 update report nor does the auditor general discuss at all whether or not the public money in the company was secured.

There was also no reference to the first recommendation from 2007. That one suggested there may be no legal basis for the department to operate the fund in the way it had been operated in the first place.

In fact, there’s no reference at all in the 2009 review to how the fund actually operates three years after the period covered by the first review.

Compare that, however, to the significant problems found in the 2007 report:

• there was “no explicit authority under the Financial Administration Act for the Department to make direct investments in companies” and yet in a single year the department made three investments totalling “$1,050,000 to three companies”;
• There were “no documented procedures for approving, disbursing and monitoring such unique investments and, as a result, these investments were not subject to the same due diligence required for investments under the SME Fund. “
• “[N]one of the three companies were required to repay the investment
  contingent on either income earned or a maximum seven year period;”
• “one company was not required to submit documentation to support
  specific expenditures;”
• “shareholders for one company (Knowledge-based IT Company A) who received $500,000 were not required to make new equity investments as part of their contribution to the project; instead, previous investments were accepted;”
• “shareholders for one company (Knowledge-based IT Company B) who received $500,000 were not required to provide personal net worth statements;” and
• “Department officials were not entitled to attend any company meetings for one company (Knowledge-based IT Company B) even though the company was provided with funding totalling $500,000.”

-srbp-