Think of it this way

Will Gill Deacon be filling in for Mansbridge?

So then why...?

You know what I am driving at.

Ford dies; Reagan surprise

Former American president Gerald Ford died Tuesday, aged 93.

The guy who made Chevy Chase's career became president with Richard Nixon's resignation. He is generally regarded as a principled, capable president who led the United States through one of the most difficult periods in the country's political history.

In other news, recent scholarship has revealed that Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev came close to completely eliminating their nations' nuclear weapons arnsenals at the Iceland summit in 1986.

The story originally aired on CBC's The Current back in October, but your humble e-scribbler only caught the interviews on Boxing Day. Here's a link to the audio file.

In 1986, some of us were headed to graduate school for more work on defence and foreign policy, so arms control was right at the heart of what we were doing. And yes, some of us felt that while there could and should be dramatic reductions in the size of nuclear arsenals, it was almsot impossible for two countries to reduce to zero unless every country reduced their arsenal to zero at the same time. The issue is a little more complex than either The Current's host and her schollar-guests acknowledge.

Nonetheless, the work they talk about sheds an entirely new perspective on a very important international political event.

It should also help some people to dramatically revise their views. If one prof in particular is still teaching international security and arms control courses at Memorial's political science department, he'll have to go back to the drawing board. One of the favourite demons in his analysis turns out to have been the opposite of the characture he liked to draw.

The Reykjavik Files can be found here at George Washington University's website.

NL hospitals included?

It's nice to hear about the medical capabilities at hospitals in the "Maritimes", but will any hospitals in Newfoundland and Labrador be accepting casualties from the next rotation in Afghanistan?

Some aspects of this story sound like a Canadian Press staffer living in Halifax writing Christmas filler.

Yuletide amusements

1. From John Gushue, a little quiz on local politics and current events in the past year. Your humble e-scribbler missed two questions. John is a wicked quiz compiler.

2. From NORAD, their annual live tracking of Santa as he travels around the world on this Christmas Eve. The site is fun and the wee ones in your household will delight in the videos of Santa as he travels to New Zealand and Australia (already done).

Happy Christmas!

Now that the annoyance is over, enjoy these contrasting examples of the mummering tradition. The first is from Dorset, the West Country county whence so many Newfoundlanders are descended. The second is a tiny snippet from Newfoundland.



Sadly, this was the only Newfoundland example of mummering available on Youtube. The local tradition of mummering is much more informal than the Dorset one, at least as described in the notes accompanying the clip above.

Leftovers from polling period

Government news releases must be on the quota system.

Either that or some departments just felt the need to clear out their backlog of bumpf on this, the last working day before Christmas.

How encouraging it is to know the provincial government is committed to safe communities.

That last government grant to roving gangs of murderers and rapists had me worried for a second.

Sheesh.

Oh yes.

One last thing.

It's nicely written, Bill.

But public onanism - even in written form - is still a crime that can land you in jail. Look up s. 173 or 175 of the Crim Code. There's a good chance someone in your office has a copy.

Twisted Christmas

1. There's a Santa who looks a lot like Elvis. ram file; great little parody of a song made famous by Bing Crosby.

2. Weird Al: Christmas at Ground Zero

Retilling the much ploughed patch

From the Financial Post, this article on the movement of aluminum production to the Middle East and Asia.

The big attraction is low-cost power and the giant manufacturing markets that need aluminum. In the past decade, China's share of world aluminum production has gone from 9% to 25%. Canada's share has declined by a couple of percentage points; ditto Europe (including Iceland). The American share has dropped as dramatically as China's has risen.

This seems like an opportune time to quote an observation by the late Don Jamieson, left, once deputy prime minister, minister of external affairs and at one time minister of regional economic expansion in the Government of Canada.

He once observed a common trait - a faulty perception really - among so many in Canada. The following excerpt is from his memoir, No place for fools: the political memoirs of Don Jamieson, volume 1, (St. John's: Breakwater, 1989), p. 158:

He [Joe Smallwood] was the victim as well of a delusion I have observed frequently among leaders at many levels. He thought that the area where he held sway was larger and more important than it actually was. Newfoundland was Smallwood's life, his universe and he developed exaggerated, unrealistic expectations for it. If other provinces and regions could have steel mills and similar heavy industries, so could Newfoundland. Likewise for secondary manufacturing and resource upgrading. Smallwood saw himself breaking new ground with this approach; in fact, he was retilling a much ploughed patch and, subconsciously, seeking to outperform previous Newfoundland leaders.

These days some use this sort of delusion to drive an entire blog-worth of posts or calls to talk shows in which, inevitably, Confederation would be blamed for the economic rise of China or for the misfortune of Newfoundland not being adjacent to the Asian giant.

Another kindred spirit runs the province on much the same delusion as some of his predecessors. No wonder the blogger is so critical of the other; they are fighting for same shop-worn turf.

(h/t to Offal News' Simon Lono for recalling Jamieson's wisdom)

The problem for Stock Day

Forget the fractured syntax.

Forget the racial overtones.

Stock Day obviously thinks in Stone Age terms if he refers to "down-east spearchuckers".



Here's what those "down-east" types think of when it comes to missile weapons, political or otherwise:




You keep on living in the past Stock and we'll see you at the polls.

Iceland's miracle: the other side

For some people, Iceland has replaced Ireland as the model du jour that we should be aping as quickly as possible.

Yada yada yada.

None of the proponents of the Iceland model actually talk about the Iceland model as it actually is; they just talk about what they fantasize it means. That's largely just an excuse to avoid dealing with local issues in a practical way, of course.

Well, one of the costs of Iceland's supposed economic miracle is a currency that is dropping against the Euro. As a result, the Icelandic central bank has raised interests rates to 14.25%. It's been about 15 years since we've seen those kinds of interest rates in Canada.

Investors are keeping a close eye on the Iceland situation since the whole economic tension is coming from a government deficit on current account that is running at 27% of gross domestic product in the third quarter.

To put that in context, that's the equivalent of the provincial government here running a deficit - in a three month period just ended - of around $1.35 billion. That's just in one quarter, and assuming the economic output in the economy right at the moment is about $5.0 billion per quarter.

At that rate, Newfoundland and Labrador would add another $5.0 billion or so to its debt in a single year. The current consolidated accrual debt at the moment is estimated at $11.0 billion. The whole government budget this year is in the neighbourhood of $5.0 billion.

Iceland might be able to manage that in short term. For Newfoundland and Labrador, that kind of economic mess would rival the stuff that led to the collapse of responsible government in 1934.

The story has been picked up as far away as Shanghai, based on the Bloomberg story.

This is the 18th time the central bank has raised interest rates since May 2004.

Christmas in Dannyland 5

Christmas in Dannyland 4, an unsolicited contribution by WJM, can be found at labradore.

Here's the next instalment from Bond. Maybe your humble e-scribbler will get a gig writing for Revue '06.

[Tune: Santa Claus is coming to town]

Danny's jaw is clenching again

He's gettin' annoyed.
He's royally upset.
Emotionally,
he's nearly a wreck.
Danny's jaw is clenching again.

He's showin' his angst
at Randy, not Bill.
The blood pressure's up.
He just cannot chill.
Danny's vein is throbbing again.

Refrain:

He's ticked off at the teachers.
He's riled at the PM.
The Opposition's got him miffed
pushin' Dan around the bend.

He's pissed off at Grimes.
Big Oil is bad, too.
He'll tell you
he's got lots better to do.
Danny's temple's throbbing again.

Pachelbel's Canon in D sucks bigtime

This guy has it right on.

As someone who suffered through the canon during his wedding - but managed to sneak "God Save the Tsar!" into the lineup - your humble e-scribbler brings you this hysterically funny take on what many of us feel:

Rig shortage slows exploration

A global shortage of semisubmersible rigs capable of drilling in deep water is affecting exploration and development, according to bloomberg.com.

Rental fees are increasing and order books for new rigs are already backlogged as demand outstrips the ability of the handful of shipyards able to build the behemoths to keep pace. Two new rigs will enter the global fleet in 2007 with another 13 due in 2008. Currently, there are just 18 rigs like Cajun Express [right] capable of drilling more than four miles below the seabed.

All this is a reminder of the highly competitive global marketplace that will likely keep exploration offshore Newfoundland and Labrador at a meagre level for the better part of the next decade. Optimism that the area might become home to renewed global interest were dashed in early 2006 with collapse of the Hebron talks, political grandstanding by Premier Danny Williams and a failure by the Williams government to deliver an energy plan focused on creating a globally competitive environment.

One element to note from Bloomberg is the development of Chevron's Tahiti field. Discovered in 2002, the field contains an estimated $33 billion in oil and will begin production in 2008.

By contrast, the Hebron field was discovered in the early 1980s but was considered commercially non-viable for almost two decades. Engineering studies began in 1999, spurred by a new provincial government royalty regime. A unitization agreement was achieved among the four-company consortium ine arly 2005 followed by talks with the provincial government on royalties and local benefits. Talks with the province collapsed in April 2006 based on demands from the provincial government for super-royalties and an equity position in the development for the Crown-owned hydroelectric company. The latter contained a significant problem since the company had no prior experience in oil and gas work. In addition, the company does not function like Statoil or Norsk Hydro but is controlled very closely by the Premier's Office.

Premier Danny Williams claimed he rejected the companies' proposal for $500 million in tax concessions during the construction phase of the project. Published reportsd estimated Hebron's 500 million-plus barrels of oil was worth between CDN$8 to CDN$10 billion in royalties to the provincial government over the production lifespan. An additional 250 million barrels were not included in the Hebron proposal but were available for subsequent exploitation.

Any new talks on the Hebron field are not likely to begin before Danny Williams quits the premier's office, presumably in 2009/2010.

Squeezing the Hibernia field by rejecting an application to develop 300 million barrels in Hibernia South would be folly that would only deplete provincial government coffers. The oil industry has plenty of opportunities to make plenty of cash somewhere else.

Signed, sealed, delivered and rammed

Let the people know the truth and the country is safe. We will keep the people of the province fully informed; there will be no secret documents.There will be no hidden agendas. If you and I know the facts then we will collectively decide the best course for the future...

That is what my platform is about: no hidden documents; no hidden agendas.

Danny Williams, Leader of the Opposition,
paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln in debate on the
Access to Information and Protection of Public Privacy Act,
House of Assembly, December 3, 2001.

How times have changed.

Premier Danny Williams will not allow the Auditor General to review certain documents presented to cabinet and related to the fibre optic deal. He defends his decision by pointing to the letter of the law.

This is not the first time Williams has demonstrated that the noble words delivered shortly after his election to the House of Assembly were not matched by his actions once he became Premier. A year into his administration, Williams rejected a request from The Telegram for access to polling conducted for his office out of public funds. He claimed the letter of the access to information law prevented their releases since they would reveal cabinet confidences.

He was proven wrong by a simple reading of the access act itself which explicitly stated that public opinion polling could not be withheld from disclosure. He was also proven wrong in a subsequent decision by the access and privacy commissioner.

In examining the Premier's latest in a long list of efforts to avoid public accountability for his actions in office, it is useful to go back to what Danny Williams argued from the opposition benches.

At that time, the current premier was in favour of open and largely unfettered access to information. He criticized provisions of the access legislation as having been "put in here as a shield to protect the government."

"The people of the province have a right to know what is going on...It [a deal or agreement] should not be signed, sealed and delivered and then rammed down their throats when it is all over."

His belief in openness and transparency appeared undeniable.

That was in 2001.

In November 2006, when faced with questions about the deal, the Progressive Conservative majority in the House of Assembly amended an opposition motion to read simply:

Therefore be it resolved that the House of Assembly, in the spirit of openness and accountability, ask the Auditor General, an independent Officer of the House of Assembly, to investigate all the details and circumstances of the fiber [sic] optic deal.

Note the simple word "all".

Given Premier Williams' position today that the Auditor General is prohibited by law from reviewing cabinet documents (including background reports, recommendations by officials etc), and given that the Premier and his colleagues were clearly familiar with the provisions of the access legislation when they voted in favour of the resolution calling on the Auditor General to review the fibre optic deal, one can only reasonably conclude that the Premier and the members of his caucus had no intention of allowing access to "all" details and circumstances.

What is truly curious about the Premier's position, though, is that the disclosure in this instance is limited to a single official of the House of Assembly in a very specific context. This is no ordinary official in the pantheon of Williams props. The Auditor General holds a revered status akin only to God himself; that is, when Williams wants to attack his own political enemies. Cabinet ministers are slaughter on the AG's word.

And while Danny Williams advocated unfettered information access for the lumpenproletariat - like your humble e-scribbler and you - only a few short years ago, Williams in this instance is denying his own deity the ability to have a confidential review of certain documents directly related to a controversial issue.

Think about that.

And it is not as thought individuals have not been given access to documents. Cabinet is quite able to disclose information based solely on its own discretion. Details of Hydro Corporation expenditures on the Lower Churchill were revealed in 2004, completely contrary to the access act. Cabinet has the legal ability to disclose certain information, at its discretion, and to restrict the subsequent disclosure.

In this case, the twin imperatives of cabinet confidentiality and the need to demonstrate that the fibre deal is "squeaky clean" can be easily balanced. That is, they could be balanced if the Premier was sincere.

By his own actions, evidently, he is not.

Or perhaps there is some other reason for the Premier's willingness to block the Auditor General's review.

It should not go unnoticed that in his news release the Premier drew attention to provisions of the access law that prevent "disclosure of Cabinet confidences and information harmful to law enforcement." In the release the Premier - and his publicist - paraphrased the act in describing cabinet confidences. There was no apparent need to mention the other provision of the act at all since - so far as we know - there is nothing in this Persona deal that is connected in any way to law enforcement. Why did the Premier mention it at all?

Sadly, we will not know, at least until a future administration appoints a public inquiry. Until then, we must be satisfied - according to Danny Williams' actions - with having this deal signed, sealed, and delivered.

For good measure, the Premier rammed the whole thing today but his destination was considerably lower than our throats.

It must be good to be da king, indeed.

Waiting for the other shoe

Hibernia oil production is forecast to drop next year and Hibernia Management and Development is pinning the decline on delay in approving its application to develop the southern Hibernia field.

The development application was held up by wrangling between Danny Williams and Ottawa over the appointment of a new chairman and chief executive officer for the joint board that regulates offshore oil and gas. The board - which now includes chairman/CEO Max Ruelokke and Andy Wells - has taken more than a month to consider recommendations from officials based on their own assessment and results of a public consultation process.

The National Post story linked above notes that no decision had been made as of 16 December 2006. A decision has been made since then. Under the Atlantic Accord (1985), the federal and provincial governments now have 30 days to approve or disapprove the offshore board decision. There's no indication of the board's decision.

The local oil patch has long speculated that the provincial government will quash development of the 300 million barrels in the southern Hibernia structures either to try and force a re-start negotiations of Hebron, as one National Post source speculates, or to have the field treated as a new development.

As a new development, the 300 million barrels would require negotiations to set benefits and royalties. Bond Papers contends the southern field is part of the main project and would not meet any objective criteria to establish it as a separate project.

If the provincial government rejects the application, work offshore Newfoundland and Labrador will grind to a virtual standstill outside of the effort needed to produce oil at the existing fields - Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose. Exxon Mobil will drill two exploration holes in the Orphan basin. No other work appears scheduled.

Hibernia is owned by ExxonMobil, Chevron, Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation, Murphy Oil and Norsk Hydro. Norsk Hydro's interest will become part of the new Norwegian oil and gas company created by the merger of Statoil with Hydro's offshore assets.

There are duties and then there are duties

Finance Minister Loyola Sullivan says the comptroller general has a legal obligation to collect any money that's owed to the province.

Sullivan (right) made the comment when announcing today that the comptroller general would be sending letters to the five current and former members of the House of Assembly demanding repayment of alleged overpayments in the House of Assembly spending scandal.

Perhaps the finance minister should read all of the Financial Administration Act and acknowledge that significant details of the House of Assembly scandal have not been properly investigated and disclosed to the public.

For example, the comptroller general has a legal obligation to maintain the public accounts under terms set out in s. 27:

27. (1) The comptroller general shall keep a ledger in which shall be entered the departmental appropriations by Heads of Expenditure and by subheads and subdivisions in accordance with the subhead and subdivision allocations exhibited in the estimates for the fiscal year concerned, as amended in accordance with this Act, against which shall be charged all authorized expenditures.

(2) The comptroller general shall establish and maintain a record of commitments chargeable to each appropriation in the form that the board may prescribe.

(3) The comptroller general shall furnish to each deputy minister or other officer charged with the administration of a Head of Expenditure a statement of the charges entered against the Head of Expenditure or a subhead or subdivision of a Head of Expenditure and those statements shall be furnished at those periods that the deputy minister may reasonably require and shall show the charges made during the report period together with the balances at the credit of the Head of Expenditure or subheads or subdivisions at the end of each period concerned.

(4) When a subhead or a subdivision is exhausted, the comptroller general shall at once notify the deputy minister concerned and the comptroller general shall not sanction a further charge to be entered against that subhead or subdivision except as provided in this Act.

Notice that the comptroller general is responsible to track expenditures and to advise the deputy minister concerned - in this case the Clerk of the House of Assembly - that a line item has been overspent.

Under s.27.(4), the comptroller general "shall not sanction a further charge to be entered against that subhead or subdivision".

In the House of Assembly scandal we simply do not know what, if anything, the comptroller general did to discharge this responsibility. Had this responsibility been properly discharged, we likely wouldn't be looking at the mess we have today. If the comptroller general did his duty but was overruled by others, then the public has an incontrovertible right to know and to hold accountable those who sanctioned the overspending.

We do know that in from 1998 to 2005, the allowances and assistance budget for the House of Assembly was overspent to a total of $3.2 million. The Auditor General has only identified $1.58 million in excess spending. The table above shows the excess spending compared to the budget (red line) compared to the totals identified by the Auditor General (yellow line). Over half the overspending remains unaccounted for even after two supposedly thorough investigations by the Auditor General.

But wait.

It gets better.

Under s. 29, the comptroller general has further statutory obligations:

29. The comptroller general shall ensure that no payment of public money is made

(a) for which there is no legislative appropriation;

(b) for which no other appropriation has been provided under this Act;

(c) which is in excess of an appropriation; or

(d) which is in excess of sums that may have been deposited with the government in trust for a person,

and the comptroller general shall report to the board a case which comes to his or her notice in which liability has been incurred by a minister, deputy minister or other officer or person which contravenes this Act and the board may take whatever action in the matter that it considers necessary. [Emphasis added]

The comptroller general is specifically enjoined not to disburse money in excess of an appropriation. He is also obliged to report overspending to the treasury board. That is in addition to reporting to the appropriate deputy minister of equivalent.

Even if the deputy minister involved fails to act, there are others above him or her who have legal duties: the members of treasury board, all of whom are cabinet ministers.

One of the key members of treasury board is the president, which for several years is a position occupied by the minister of finance under successive Liberal and now Progressive Conservative administrations.

We know that significant overspending - about $1.0 million - occurred since Loyola Sullivan has been finance minister, president of treasury board and a member of the House of Assembly's Internal Economy Commission. Over $800,000 of that amount remains unexplained.

We have a right to know what happened.

Loyola has a duty to tell us.

When can we expect that duty to be discharged?

But what did Danny ask for?

Bond Papers has learned that fax machines at Confederation Building have been busily churning out a lengthy diatribe from the Scrappiest Premier in Canada (trademark pending) to each of Newfoundland and Labrador's members of parliament seeking their unequivocal support in the coming holy war between Danny Williams and Ottawa on Equalization.

While Premier Danny Williams likes to talk about Stephen Harper's commitment given in response to a letter Williams wrote to the federal party leaders, Scrappy isn't too keen to discuss his own version of what the Equalization formula should look like.

Well, in the interest of annoying the Premier so much he names Bond Papers next time full debate and discussion on this issue of such public importance, here's the Danny Williams proposal for Equalization reform with notes by your humble e-scribbler.

Get to the end of this post and then see if you can explain why Danny's knickers are in such a knot. Forget the nonsense from the Premier's publicity department. Compare what the Premier proposed the government's official position to what he is now bickering over.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is advocating the following reforms to the equalization program:

(1) return to a formula driven approach to the determination of equalization entitlements, abandoning the "fixed pot" approach introduced in October 2004; [BP: All the first ministers are in agreement with this. The federal proposal and the O'Brien commission report all discuss a return to a formula based on commonly-accepted principles.]

(2) the measurement of fiscal capacity must extend beyond simply revenue raising to include accounting for the impact of debt and debt servicing; [BP: Newfoundland and Labrador is pretty much alone on this one. Debt and debt servicing are a direct result of provincial government fiscal decisions. Taking this approach would commit the federal government to transfer cash to the province but would relieve the province of any obligation to address its own debt problem. After all, if this section were implemented as the Premier intends it, the provincial government could wrack up ever increasing levels of public debt and actually see increases in federal transfers. Don't expect anyone to endorse this or for Williams to admit that what he really wants is the exactly opposite of what he publicly claims to support . His own words say something completely different, though.]

(3) comprehensive revenue coverage (which would include, in full, all renewable and non-renewable resource revenues); [BP: In January 2006, Danny Williams proposed the complete clawback of all resource revenues through Equalization.

Danny Williams is on a new political jihad because the federal government is threatening to include half of all resource revenues in figuring out equalization payments.

Danny Williams now claims he wants the federal government to exclude only non-renewable resource revenues.

Under Williams' original proposal, offshore oil and gas revenues would be protected for a limited period through the offshore agreements (1985 and 2005). All other revenues would be clawed back. The loss to the provincial treasury would be at least as the amount under the current federal proposal.

Under the current proposal the provincial government may lose federal transfers of about $100 to $200 million per year. Oil revenues alone are forecast to grow beyond that amount.

and,

(4) a return to the 10 province national average standard...[BP: This principle is included in the O'Brien report and recent federal proposals.]

Confuddled? I didn't think so.

What Danny Williams says today and what he actually wrote as the official position of the provincial government in January are two completely different things.

On top of that, you should know that Williams isn't only concerned about Equalization. Rather he is also perturbed that the federal government is planning to restrict its spending in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction like education.

The big problem for Danny Williams is that he has absolutely no influence in Ottawa at all. This is a problem entirely of his own making.

On top of that, Williams is suffering from the evident hypocrisy of his earlier positions. On the one hand he relentlessly criticized the federal government yet at the same time sought to increase federal transfers to his own administration.

Contrast this with the position taken by Clyde Wells a decade and a half earlier. Wells recognized the need to change the Newfoundland and Labrador economy and reduce the provincial government's dependence on federal transfers. However, Wells also recognized the important role of the federal government as the national government - something Williams' "Dannyland" pretensions rudely ignore - and specifically in developing the province through the transition period to a properly developed economy.

The dependence was something to be acknowledged but worked against. In Williams case, he has actively sought to increase it.

Of course, Wells and then-prime minister Brian Mulroney may not have been fast friends, but at least Mulroney would return Wells' phone calls and answer his letters.

And Mulroney's communications director never cavalierly dismissed Wells as easily as Harper's did with Williams.

Payback is indeed a mother, isn't it Danny?

Norwegian oil giants merge

Norwegian oil and gas companies Statoil and Norsk Hydro announced Monday they will merge their offshore hydrocarbon operations, thereby creating the largest offshore oil producing company in the world. The announcement can be found at statoil.com and at hydro.com.

The Norwegian Crown will own 62.5% of the new company. Norsk Hydro's aluminum production and electricity generating assets will remain part of a separate company.

Bloomberg describes the transaction this way:

Statoil ASA, Norway's state-controlled oil company, agreed to buy Norsk Hydro ASA's energy business for about $28 billion as supplies from domestic fields peak and competition intensifies for drilling contracts from Russia to Venezuela.

The Norwegian announcement moves the two corporations in a direction opposite to the one taken by the Williams administration which earlier this year expanded the mandate of the Crown-owned hydroelectricity company to allow it to engage in any economic activity approved by cabinet. Williams has stated repeatedly that he has been following the Norwegian model in creating the stated-owned megacorporation.

Implications for the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore are unclear at this time. Norsk Hydro has interests in Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose and the stalled Hebron project.

No Hebron until Danny's gone

One of the logical conclusions from Danny's Williams long slow good-bye: Hebron negotiations won't stand a chance of starting until after he's gone, likely 2010 at the earliest.

That would make April Fools out of those who believed this:

"I'm saying to ExxonMobil right now that if you don't want to move on with this project, then we would be prepared to take you out," said Williams, who added his government is prepared to take on a greater equity stake with remaining partners.

Second refinery costed, deemed feasible

[Revised]

Newfoundland and Labrador Refining's proposed Placentia Bay refinery will cost CDN$4.6 billion, according to a news release from the company.

The story made headlines in the United Kingdom over the weekend, including The Sunday Times.

If built, the proposed heavy oil refinery will process 300,000 barrels per day initially with a 15% rate of return. [Note: It isn't clear from the NL Refining statement if the feasibility study concluded that the project is feasible and will provide a base-line 15% ROR or if the project would be considered feasible if it provided a 15% ROR.]

In addition to appointing a vice-president commercial recently, NL Refining has engaged Susan Hollett of Hollett and Sons to conduct consultations on the project.