Chinese companies can get tax breaks or other incentives for investing in oil and gas industries in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Morocco, Libya, Niger, Norway, Ecuador and Bolivia, according to an announcement by China's top planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission.
01 March 2007
China boosts oil incentives
In an effort to secure additional energy sources, China announced Thursday it was adding nine countries to its list of economies where its companies can gain incentives to invest.
Progress on passport initiative
Three Canadian premiers, in Washington to push for alternatives to proposed American border controls, found a powerful ally Wednesday in House rules committee chair Louise Slaughter (D-NY).
Grimes may sue too
Transportation minister John Hickey filed a statement of claim against former premier Roger Grimes on Tuesday in the ongoing battle over Grimes' comments on Hickey's double billing of his legislature expense accounts.
Grimes is now looking for an apology from Premier Danny Williams.
From the story by Rob Antle in Thursday's Telegram:
Grimes is now looking for an apology from Premier Danny Williams.
From the story by Rob Antle in Thursday's Telegram:
On Feb. 14, Williams went on open line and implied that Grimes called Hickey a "criminal."
But Grimes told The Telegram he did not do so.
"The fact of the matter is Danny Williams said that. Roger Grimes never, ever, ever said any of that publicly."
Grimes charged that those comments were the slanderous ones.
"(My) lawyers say the only defamation that's occurred in this whole process has been the premier on open line suggesting falsely to the public that I said things that I never, ever said," Grimes said.
Now, Grimes wants his own apology.
His lawyers wrote a letter hand-delivered to the premier's office Monday. They demanded that Williams apologize by Friday.
If such an apology is not forthcoming, Grimes will consult with friends and legal counsel to examine his options over the weekend.
Hillier on Goose Bay: uncertain
As Radio Canada reported on 24 Feb, Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hiller said he could not pronounce on the future of the military base at Goose Bay.
He told reporters that while the existing personnel would remain in place, he was also uncertain about the base's future.
-------------------------------
Observation: This story does not appear to have been picked up in English-language media.
Complete French text below:
He told reporters that while the existing personnel would remain in place, he was also uncertain about the base's future.
-------------------------------
Observation: This story does not appear to have been picked up in English-language media.
Complete French text below:
Le commandant en chef des forces armées canadiennes, Rick Hillier, affirme qu'il ne peut se prononcer sur l'avenir de la base militaire de Happy Valley-Goose Bay à Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador. Il dit être en attente d'informations d'Ottawa à ce sujet. [Hillier is actually the Chief of the Defence Staff, not commander in chief. In Franch, that would be Chef d'etat-major de la Defense.]
Même s'il confirme que le personnel de la base restera en place, le général Hillier affirme qu'il est lui aussi dans l'incertitude quant à son avenir.
Lors de la dernière campagne électorale fédérale, le Parti conservateur avait promis d'augmenter les effectifs à Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador afin, notamment, d'assurer une surveillance de l'Atlantique et de l'Arctique.
Aucune annonce concrète n'a été faite depuis, toutefois. Ce qui a fait dire aux libéraux que le gouvernement conservateur n'a pas l'intention de respecter cette promesse.
28 February 2007
Antle and Cochrane: a Northern view
From the truly Great White North, former reporter's Craig Welsh's towniebastard perspective on work this week by Rob Antle at the Telegram, and David Cochrane's speech to the Board of Trade.
Craig links to both Antle and Cochrane. [left. Photo: cbc.ca. Does that look like the face of a wild-eyed radical to you?] You can find them elsewhere on Bond as well.
He makes some valid, well-argued points about the difficult job of reporting. No argument from here and your humble e-scribbler will take a few lumps if some of the criticism of reporters Craig mentions has come from this space.
Then Craig wonders where the pro-Danny blogs are.
There are a few. It doesn't take much scrolling to find them on the blog roll at right. Craig mentions Liam O'Brien at Responsible Government League and rightly notes that Liam has changed his view markedly over the course of time. Check out nf.general on the old part of the Internet, though, and you'll find many more doing their bit to support the Danny cause. For a case in point, have a gander at the thread on Cochrane's speech.
On blogs, it can be easy to forget that the audience for blogs in this province is small. While something like Bond can reach some pretty influential audiences, there's just no matching the readership of the province's major daily or the eyeballs glued to NTV every night for Fred, Lynn, Toni, and Glen. Government puts its effort where it brings the greatest result.
It's also important to recall that Danny's comms approach is inherited, in large part, from what went immediately before. A surprising number of his comms people - starting at the top - came out of the Tobin/Grimes system and they continue to do what they learned when they started. Others who have come on board since 2003 follow the general pattern already laid out. Largely it works, or, to be more accurate, seems to work.
There's a reason why this administration, like the Tobin and Grimes ones before it, uses radio talk shows as extensively as it does. Talk radio makes it much easier to get the word out unfiltered. In dealing with other media, the messaging still works, largely because reporters work with the disadvantage of not knowing a lot of things or having the time to background a story to be properly briefed. The entire crowd in this market can be as hardnosed and persistent as the best of them out there anywhere, but more often than not you need to know what to ask in order to get the information.
Given the pressures on modern newsrooms, it is rare to see a place - print, radio, or television - with the budget or a reporter with the time to be able to undertake the sort of in-depth research Antle obviously did. Not so long ago, that sort of background would have been done shortly after the story first broke. As it is, Antle wound up taking something eight months to piece it all together. That isn't a criticism of him; rather take it as an admonition to consider the human dimension to his job and that of all his colleagues.
To get back to blogs, though, this provincial government pays as much attention to blogs as most business people in the province. While blogging has become a very potent communications tool elsewhere, around these parts, people are still waking up to the phenomenon. Your humble e-scribbler was asked again this evening by a colleague if this effort generates any business. Not a stain, went the reply, although in virtually every other market, the seemingly obvious demonstration of the impact a blog can have plus whatever other skills and knowledge are evident here would likely pull the odd hobble.
Craig finishes off with an observation about what the next six months might bring. The first couple of months of the New Year have brought all sorts of bizarre developments in politics and elsewhere.
No one knows what's around the next corner and that's part of what will make 2007 a fascinating year in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It also makes for great blogging.
Craig links to both Antle and Cochrane. [left. Photo: cbc.ca. Does that look like the face of a wild-eyed radical to you?] You can find them elsewhere on Bond as well.He makes some valid, well-argued points about the difficult job of reporting. No argument from here and your humble e-scribbler will take a few lumps if some of the criticism of reporters Craig mentions has come from this space.
Then Craig wonders where the pro-Danny blogs are.
There are a few. It doesn't take much scrolling to find them on the blog roll at right. Craig mentions Liam O'Brien at Responsible Government League and rightly notes that Liam has changed his view markedly over the course of time. Check out nf.general on the old part of the Internet, though, and you'll find many more doing their bit to support the Danny cause. For a case in point, have a gander at the thread on Cochrane's speech.
On blogs, it can be easy to forget that the audience for blogs in this province is small. While something like Bond can reach some pretty influential audiences, there's just no matching the readership of the province's major daily or the eyeballs glued to NTV every night for Fred, Lynn, Toni, and Glen. Government puts its effort where it brings the greatest result.
It's also important to recall that Danny's comms approach is inherited, in large part, from what went immediately before. A surprising number of his comms people - starting at the top - came out of the Tobin/Grimes system and they continue to do what they learned when they started. Others who have come on board since 2003 follow the general pattern already laid out. Largely it works, or, to be more accurate, seems to work.
There's a reason why this administration, like the Tobin and Grimes ones before it, uses radio talk shows as extensively as it does. Talk radio makes it much easier to get the word out unfiltered. In dealing with other media, the messaging still works, largely because reporters work with the disadvantage of not knowing a lot of things or having the time to background a story to be properly briefed. The entire crowd in this market can be as hardnosed and persistent as the best of them out there anywhere, but more often than not you need to know what to ask in order to get the information.
Given the pressures on modern newsrooms, it is rare to see a place - print, radio, or television - with the budget or a reporter with the time to be able to undertake the sort of in-depth research Antle obviously did. Not so long ago, that sort of background would have been done shortly after the story first broke. As it is, Antle wound up taking something eight months to piece it all together. That isn't a criticism of him; rather take it as an admonition to consider the human dimension to his job and that of all his colleagues.
To get back to blogs, though, this provincial government pays as much attention to blogs as most business people in the province. While blogging has become a very potent communications tool elsewhere, around these parts, people are still waking up to the phenomenon. Your humble e-scribbler was asked again this evening by a colleague if this effort generates any business. Not a stain, went the reply, although in virtually every other market, the seemingly obvious demonstration of the impact a blog can have plus whatever other skills and knowledge are evident here would likely pull the odd hobble.
Craig finishes off with an observation about what the next six months might bring. The first couple of months of the New Year have brought all sorts of bizarre developments in politics and elsewhere.
No one knows what's around the next corner and that's part of what will make 2007 a fascinating year in Newfoundland and Labrador.
It also makes for great blogging.
David Cochrane: Patriotic Correctness
CBC provincial reporter David Cochrane spoke to the St. John's Board of Trade last week.
His speech is insightful, well-founded and hard hitting.
Geoff Meeker has a copy which he has edited slightly and posted in its entirety.
Read it.
You won't be disappointed.
His speech is insightful, well-founded and hard hitting.
Geoff Meeker has a copy which he has edited slightly and posted in its entirety.
Read it.
You won't be disappointed.
Dead blog in the middle of the road
Public discussion is dead over at Sue's little corner of cyberspace.
It was only a matter of time.
Free speech isn't free if it's underground.
It was only a matter of time.
Free speech isn't free if it's underground.
27 February 2007
Quebec and NL in same economic and political boat
This column by the Globe and Mail's Konrad Yakabuski describes Quebec as a province on the edge of a financial precipice.
The basis for Yakabuski's comments is a document released over a year ago by Lucien Bouchard and several prominent political scientists and economists. They argued, according to Yakabuski, "that Quebeckers were sleepwalking toward self-annihilation by failing to address the ticking time bombs of an ever-expanding provincial debt, sluggish economic growth and a population that is aging faster than anywhere else in the developed world except Japan."
One could easily switch "Newfoundland and Labrador" for "Quebec" and the names of local politicians for the crowd in this province. The tale is the same.
Public debt and the implications of demographic change sit as twin 800 pound gorillas in the middle of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly. Not a single politician will even acknowledge their presence, let alone deal with them.
Increased dependence on federal transfers is occurring in Quebec; in Newfoundland and Labrador, restoring Newfoundland and Labrador to dependence on the federal government is the core of Danny Williams' policy.
Quebec receives 20% of its revenue from Mon Oncle Ottawa; in Newfoundland and Labrador, the figure is somewhere between 30% - the official government figure - and over 40% - the figure from the Fraser Institute.
In some respects, Newfoundland and Labrador is actually in far worse shape than Quebec.
Yakabuski notes that Quebec runs the risk of having health care eat up 68% of public spending in 2030, compared with 43% today. Newfoundland and Labrador currently spends 31% of its budget on health care, but all social sector spending - health, plus education and social services - makes up 72% of government spending.
Not only is the situation already worse in some ways, the size of the problem is increasing at a greater rate here than in Quebec. Our neighbours to the west may be facing a sluggish economy. Newfoundland and Labrador is staring into an economic slowdown induced as much as anything else by a combination of conscious government policy in the case of the oil sector and, in the case of the fishery, a chronic inability to deal with a manifest disaster.
Quebec may be ignoring a problem. In Newfoundland and Labrador, politicians seem to be working hard at making the problems worse.
The provincial government here is actively pursuing a hydro-electric development that would cost upwards of $9.0 billion to build. Hydro board chairman Dean MacDonald told The Independent recently that government is seriously considering the very expensive option of shipping power around Quebec to other markets based on the belief that the deal would pay off sometime after 2041. If Premier Danny Williams is to be believed, he is prepared to defer revenue on that approach, that is to sell power for little or no profit in the meantime. That's 35 years from now. Quebec will at least make money from its hydro power. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the government may well wind up, in effect, paying people to take our resources away for a very long time.
For both provinces, though, the words of one Quebec economist are equally applicable:
Quebec politicians may not be bailing against the rising seas, but at least they aren't opening the seacocks to settle the ship of state lower in the water.
The basis for Yakabuski's comments is a document released over a year ago by Lucien Bouchard and several prominent political scientists and economists. They argued, according to Yakabuski, "that Quebeckers were sleepwalking toward self-annihilation by failing to address the ticking time bombs of an ever-expanding provincial debt, sluggish economic growth and a population that is aging faster than anywhere else in the developed world except Japan."
One could easily switch "Newfoundland and Labrador" for "Quebec" and the names of local politicians for the crowd in this province. The tale is the same.
Public debt and the implications of demographic change sit as twin 800 pound gorillas in the middle of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly. Not a single politician will even acknowledge their presence, let alone deal with them.
Increased dependence on federal transfers is occurring in Quebec; in Newfoundland and Labrador, restoring Newfoundland and Labrador to dependence on the federal government is the core of Danny Williams' policy.
Quebec receives 20% of its revenue from Mon Oncle Ottawa; in Newfoundland and Labrador, the figure is somewhere between 30% - the official government figure - and over 40% - the figure from the Fraser Institute.
In some respects, Newfoundland and Labrador is actually in far worse shape than Quebec.
Yakabuski notes that Quebec runs the risk of having health care eat up 68% of public spending in 2030, compared with 43% today. Newfoundland and Labrador currently spends 31% of its budget on health care, but all social sector spending - health, plus education and social services - makes up 72% of government spending.
Not only is the situation already worse in some ways, the size of the problem is increasing at a greater rate here than in Quebec. Our neighbours to the west may be facing a sluggish economy. Newfoundland and Labrador is staring into an economic slowdown induced as much as anything else by a combination of conscious government policy in the case of the oil sector and, in the case of the fishery, a chronic inability to deal with a manifest disaster.
Quebec may be ignoring a problem. In Newfoundland and Labrador, politicians seem to be working hard at making the problems worse.
The provincial government here is actively pursuing a hydro-electric development that would cost upwards of $9.0 billion to build. Hydro board chairman Dean MacDonald told The Independent recently that government is seriously considering the very expensive option of shipping power around Quebec to other markets based on the belief that the deal would pay off sometime after 2041. If Premier Danny Williams is to be believed, he is prepared to defer revenue on that approach, that is to sell power for little or no profit in the meantime. That's 35 years from now. Quebec will at least make money from its hydro power. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the government may well wind up, in effect, paying people to take our resources away for a very long time.
For both provinces, though, the words of one Quebec economist are equally applicable:
"For now, someone else is paying, and it's other Canadians. But we're going to hit a wall and [the rest of Canada] is going to say: 'You're asking us to pay for programs that we can't even afford for ourselves,' " said Claude Montmarquette, one of the authors of the manifesto and an economics professor at the University of Montreal.Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador are in the same economic boat.
Quebec politicians may not be bailing against the rising seas, but at least they aren't opening the seacocks to settle the ship of state lower in the water.
A magically delicious waste of time
Danny Williams is in Ireland, in part to further the Ireland Business Partnership.
Meanwhile, three other premiers - from Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick - are in the United States trying to make sure that the border to our largest trading partner is as easy to cross as possible.
In honour of the Premier's trip across the pond, along with an expensive retinue, here are a couple of observations.
If you look at the Newfoundland half of this partnership, there is a preponderance of emphasis on cultural pursuits. Take a look at the 2005-06 annual report. On the face of one would have a hard time understanding why this whole thing isn't called the Ireland Cultural partnership and run out of the tourism department.
Now to be fair, the whole thing costs less than the members of the House overspent on their allowances budgets in 2005, but this is labelled as a business initiative.
So where's the business?
On top of that, if the initiative is so important, if there really is such potential here, how come the news release portion of the project website hasn't been updated since November 2005? There were a couple of announcements in 2006, but they are all cultural in nature. You'll find them on the main government website though. The festival of the Sea thing had its own website and sure enough that portion of the partnership was maintained as recently as last October.
But where's the business?
Let's try the Irish side of the project.
You'll find mention of a sewer company from Ireland starting up a North American subsidiary. There's also a 10 villa condo development in Maddox Cove, which is inside the boundaries of St. John's.
Nice.
But that was two years ago.
Perhaps the single biggest result of this deal, signed originally 10 years ago by Brian Tobin and revived by Danny Williams, has been the regular trade missions from one side or the other. Lots of work for hoteliers, car rental companies, airlines, travel agents, that sort of thing. Bugger all else in the way of business deals.
While Danny Williams has a grand and glorious time in the land of his ancestors, other premiers are busily doing the legwork that will ultimately help businesses in our province. The United States is the single largest destination for our exports, over $2.3 billion annually. Ireland doesn't even crack $100 million.
Newfoundland and Labrador doesn't import much from Ireland either. Well, not in comparison with the United Kingdom, from which we get about $105 million in imports annually. We don't have a special partnership with the United Kingdom to strengthen economic ties with one of the world's major powers.
Nope.
They aren't even tackling the UK and Ireland as a regional package. The provincial government is focusing on Ireland alone, apparently.
Given a choice of where to devote his energies in this late winter of 2007, how curious that Danny Williams opted for Waterford instead of Washington, Donegal and Dublin instead of Dallas.
The choice is as revealing as the provincial government's own forecast of a looming and dramatic economic downturn for Newfoundland and Labrador. We'd better hope that Danny snags a leprechaun and bargains for his pot o' gold. If he was successful at that, as far as business and trade is concerned, that's about all the Tobin/Williams experiment would have turned up.
Meanwhile, three other premiers - from Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick - are in the United States trying to make sure that the border to our largest trading partner is as easy to cross as possible.
In honour of the Premier's trip across the pond, along with an expensive retinue, here are a couple of observations.
If you look at the Newfoundland half of this partnership, there is a preponderance of emphasis on cultural pursuits. Take a look at the 2005-06 annual report. On the face of one would have a hard time understanding why this whole thing isn't called the Ireland Cultural partnership and run out of the tourism department.
Now to be fair, the whole thing costs less than the members of the House overspent on their allowances budgets in 2005, but this is labelled as a business initiative.
So where's the business?
On top of that, if the initiative is so important, if there really is such potential here, how come the news release portion of the project website hasn't been updated since November 2005? There were a couple of announcements in 2006, but they are all cultural in nature. You'll find them on the main government website though. The festival of the Sea thing had its own website and sure enough that portion of the partnership was maintained as recently as last October.
But where's the business?
Let's try the Irish side of the project.
You'll find mention of a sewer company from Ireland starting up a North American subsidiary. There's also a 10 villa condo development in Maddox Cove, which is inside the boundaries of St. John's.
Nice.
But that was two years ago.
Perhaps the single biggest result of this deal, signed originally 10 years ago by Brian Tobin and revived by Danny Williams, has been the regular trade missions from one side or the other. Lots of work for hoteliers, car rental companies, airlines, travel agents, that sort of thing. Bugger all else in the way of business deals.
While Danny Williams has a grand and glorious time in the land of his ancestors, other premiers are busily doing the legwork that will ultimately help businesses in our province. The United States is the single largest destination for our exports, over $2.3 billion annually. Ireland doesn't even crack $100 million.
Newfoundland and Labrador doesn't import much from Ireland either. Well, not in comparison with the United Kingdom, from which we get about $105 million in imports annually. We don't have a special partnership with the United Kingdom to strengthen economic ties with one of the world's major powers.
Nope.
They aren't even tackling the UK and Ireland as a regional package. The provincial government is focusing on Ireland alone, apparently.
Given a choice of where to devote his energies in this late winter of 2007, how curious that Danny Williams opted for Waterford instead of Washington, Donegal and Dublin instead of Dallas.
The choice is as revealing as the provincial government's own forecast of a looming and dramatic economic downturn for Newfoundland and Labrador. We'd better hope that Danny snags a leprechaun and bargains for his pot o' gold. If he was successful at that, as far as business and trade is concerned, that's about all the Tobin/Williams experiment would have turned up.
Fortis expands to British Columbia natural gas
In a deal announced on Monday, St. John's-based Fortis Inc. will acquire the British Columbia natural gas distribution service Terasen Inc. from the American company Kinder Morgan. The deal is reportedly worth $3.7 billion in cash and debt.
Edited extract from the news release:
Edited extract from the news release:
The natural gas distribution business of Terasen, referred to as Terasen Gas, is one of the largest natural gas distribution utilities in Canada. Terasen Gas is the principal natural gas distribution utility in British Columbia, serving approximately 900,000 customers or 95% of natural gas customers in the province. Terasen Gas owns and operates 44,100 kilometres of natural gas distribution pipelines and 4,300 kilometres of natural gas transmission pipelines. Its service territory includes the populous lower mainland, Vancouver Island, and the southern interior of the province. As of September 30, 2006, Terasen Gas had an aggregate of $3.6 billion of assets, an aggregate rate base approaching $3.0 billion and approximately 1,200 employees. The company is regulated by the British Columbia Utilities Commission."These are high-quality utility assets located in a region with strong economic growth," says Stan Marshall, left, president and chief executive officer, Fortis Inc. "Through our FortisBC electric utility operations, we are very familiar with the regulatory environment and energy markets in British Columbia."
"Our expansion into the natural gas distribution business adds a third business segment and doubles the regulated rate base of Fortis to approximately $6.0 billion. The acquisition is expected to be immediately accretive to earnings per common share," explains Marshall.
Dependence on federal income support: Newfoundland and Labrador
While there is a general understanding that individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador receive significant income support from the federal government, the chart above puts it into a perspective that is nothing short of chilling.Employment insurance currently accounts for eight percent of typical personal income in the province. That's the highest level in Canada.
While the increase in per capita employment insurance (EI) payments to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians begins to rise noticeably in the mid-1970s, the rate skyrockets after the creation of the 200 mile exclusive economic zone and the consequent expansion of the highly seasonal fish processing industry. That occurred in 1977.
Curiously, as fish stocks depleted, the per capita EI amounts climb dramatically until the imposition of the cod moratorium in 1992.
After a period of decline in the 1990s (exclusive of TAGS and NCARP payments), the rates of employment insurance per capita climbed again in 1999. It continues to climb. This coincides with the end of federal support payments specifically made in relation to the cod moratorium (NCARP/TAGS). It also coincides with a provincial government policy which saw plants shift production to species such as shrimp.
Update:
The same figures, given in constant dollars, compared with the national average.
"...everyone is upset with us, so we must be doing a good job!"
Speaking Points for Max Ruelokke, Chair and CEO, C-NLOPB
NOIA Luncheon, February 21, 2007
[Note: May not be exactly as delivered. Thanks to Max Ruelokke and Sean Kelly for providing these notes.]
[Note: May not be exactly as delivered. Thanks to Max Ruelokke and Sean Kelly for providing these notes.]
• Thanks for the invitation, it feels great to be in this group where we have many shared experiences of helping to grow this industry. I must say, I felt equally at home last month in addressing the offshore workforce on Terra Nova and the Henry Goodrich.
IMPORTANCE OF OIL AND GAS WEEK:
• The C-NLOPB commissioned Corporate Research Associates in autumn 2005 to assess how much people know about the offshore oil and gas industry and about us. Here are some of the things we found out from the survey:
• Actual impact: GDP; 3200 workers directly employed. Perceived impact: Stats from Survey - 61% of people who were surveyed had no idea of the number employed, the majority of those who responded thought it was less than 2,000.
• Actual Impact: Spending since the Hibernia discovery - $ 19 B. Perceived impact: 68% had no idea, of those who did respond, the average estimate was $1.5 B.
• Offshore Industry has many components, all with a role to play:
- NOIA and its impact
- Offshore Workforce
- Operators, individually and via CAPP [Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.]
- Governments
- Finally, C-NLOPB
WHO WE ARE
• 21% of people surveyed felt we were responsible for regulating the O&G industry, compared to 42% for the Federal Government and 36% for the Provincial Government.
• Established in 1985 to administer the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts. [Federal and Provincial]
• Key mandates:
Safety
Resource management
Environmental protection
Industrial benefits
• The Board, in many ways, serves all stakeholders in the industry, sometimes satisfying none! A good example of that is the current situation where Government appears to be upset with us and our recent decision, while at the same time we are still in the appeal period of a recent court decision in a case where we were taken to court by HMDC [Hibernia Management and Development Corporation] and Petro-Canada who claimed we were imposing an unfair requirement to spend within the Province on them.
• A former Board member once mused that “.. it seems as though everyone is upset with us, so we must be doing a good job!”
• But seriously, let’s take a look at the Board:
• Seven members: Federal appointees: Hal Stanley, Lorne Spracklin and Herb Clarke; Provincial Appointees: Fred Way, Dr. Joan Whelan, Andy Wells and myself as Chairman and CEO.
• How the Board works: Decisions are made by Board Members, by the Executive, or by either or both of the Chief Safety Officer and the Chief Conservation Officer. Fundamental Decisions involving: Rights Issuance, Extraordinary Powers, Development Plans are subject to the approval of Ministers,
• All the above are based on sound staff work by the Board’s 60 employees, who are really the heart and soul of the Board. They are highly qualified, with 89% holding formal post-secondary degrees or diplomas, with 86% having been educated in Newfoundland and Labrador. More that half of them have professional designations in engineering, geoscience, finance, human resources and public relations. They are highly skilled, dedicated, and respected by their peers in industry. There is a great blend of experience and youth, and Fred Way and I as the two full-time Board members are truly blessed to work with them.
• The basis of all the Board’s decisions is its mandate to manage our offshore resources to ensure that all purposes of the Accord are taken into consideration and a balanced decision reached. Allow me to read these brief purposes:
• (Purposes are on page 1 of the Atlantic Accord Memorandum, a pdf file on our website under “Publications”)
• You can see that keeping these all in balance can be a challenge. For this reason, the Board does not, can not and will not make political decisions. Board members are appointed by Governments to manage our offshore oil and gas resources, not elected to govern. We (or rather, most of us) wouldn’t have it any other way!
• An example of a Board decision which will have a major positive impact on the province is our R&D/E&T guidelines decision. As you will all know, we are managing the exploitation of a fixed, finite, non-renewable resource. How then do we ensure that the positive impact on our Province and Country will be felt long after the resource is depleted?
• The Board considered this and concluded that it would require those who are extracting this resource should make significant investments into research and development and education and training in our province. It was decided that an annual percentage, equal to that expended in Canada by the oil industry generally, as determined by Statistics Canada from industry sources, would be applied as a levy against production operations here. At current production rates and oil prices, this will result in the expenditure of approximately $20 M annually. Several operators challenged this decision in court, but last month the courts decided in our favour. There is still the possibility of an appeal, but we are cautiously optimistic of the outcome.
• These funds will have a long-lasting positive impact on our society, and I would encourage all those who are interested in further details to contact our office and specifically Frank Smyth, our Manager of Industrial Benefits and Regulatory Coordination, who is here today .
• Thank you for your courtesy and attention, and I hope these few remarks have been helpful in explaining who we are, what we do, and how and why we do it. If there are questions I’d be pleased to answer them.
26 February 2007
Doing job worth news release
Intergovernmental affairs minister John Ottenheimer issued a news release today to let everyone know he had a bunch of meetings in Ottawa with federal ministers.
Nothing new happened, except that they met.
In polling season, that's enough, apparently, but it sure isn't news.
What an appalling waste of one of this administration's more competent ministers.
Nothing new happened, except that they met.
In polling season, that's enough, apparently, but it sure isn't news.
What an appalling waste of one of this administration's more competent ministers.
Why unions don't work
That got your attention, didn't it?
Well it's either why they don't work or Kathy Dunderdale's google-search aide is now working for the National Union of Public and General Employees [NUPGE].
Check out this piece trying to rally support against the idea of Atlantica, a trade deal aimed at increasing co-operation between the northeastern United States and eastern Canada.
The date on the piece is today.
NUPGE says that the idea is being pushed by the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. That's true, but others are interested.
NUPGE says that AIMS is headed by Brian Crowley.
Problem.
Not at the moment. Crowley is off in Ottawa giving advice to Stephen Harper. Maybe the NUPGE writer didn't see Brian on the OCTRANSPO route they probably share. Crowley's move was widely reported and is found here, at the AIMS website.
It happened in November, over three months ago.
NUPGE lists the board of directors.
Second problem.
It's out of date. To be fair, NUPGE likely got this information from the AIMS website and that's where the problem rests. AIMS lists Derrick Rowe as chief executive of Fishery Products International, a job he gave up over a year ago.
Third problem?
Well, it's the overall approach. NUPGE's tirade against Atlantica is long on ideology and short on details. AIMS gets slagged, for example, because it has complained about the very large government to private sector ratio in Atlantic Canada. Lots of people do and with good reason: as taxpayers, we all pay for the general inefficiency of the bureaucracy and the burden of carrying around higher costs than we actually need to do the job.
The general rant against free trade that forms the basis of the piece has been around for 20 years. Fewer people accept it as the evidence of free trade mounts. There are ups and downs, depending on whether you are working in the Hershey factory in Smith's Falls or if you're the Mexican worker who is getting a job upgrade.
We could get into a long rant about the need for unions, especially those in eastern Canada, to update their slogan books, but that's for another time. Like the hunter-gatherers' union, FFAW, that stands as both a giant anachronism, a conflict of interest that works against its members best interests, and, as the recent experience with FPI shows, part of the cabal of business and government interests working together - even if inadvertently - to break up Fishery Products International, all the while blaming it on someone else.
In the meantime, take a quick look at NUPGE's little piece. Then go read the stuff at AIMS and make up your mind.
Maybe when you're done, you can give some thought to why people seem happy with international free trade (ok. NUPGE isn't, I know.) but want to grab the nearest pitchfork when someone promotes inter-provincial free trade.
Well it's either why they don't work or Kathy Dunderdale's google-search aide is now working for the National Union of Public and General Employees [NUPGE].
Check out this piece trying to rally support against the idea of Atlantica, a trade deal aimed at increasing co-operation between the northeastern United States and eastern Canada.
The date on the piece is today.
NUPGE says that the idea is being pushed by the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. That's true, but others are interested.
NUPGE says that AIMS is headed by Brian Crowley.
Problem.
Not at the moment. Crowley is off in Ottawa giving advice to Stephen Harper. Maybe the NUPGE writer didn't see Brian on the OCTRANSPO route they probably share. Crowley's move was widely reported and is found here, at the AIMS website.
It happened in November, over three months ago.
NUPGE lists the board of directors.
Second problem.
It's out of date. To be fair, NUPGE likely got this information from the AIMS website and that's where the problem rests. AIMS lists Derrick Rowe as chief executive of Fishery Products International, a job he gave up over a year ago.
Third problem?
Well, it's the overall approach. NUPGE's tirade against Atlantica is long on ideology and short on details. AIMS gets slagged, for example, because it has complained about the very large government to private sector ratio in Atlantic Canada. Lots of people do and with good reason: as taxpayers, we all pay for the general inefficiency of the bureaucracy and the burden of carrying around higher costs than we actually need to do the job.
The general rant against free trade that forms the basis of the piece has been around for 20 years. Fewer people accept it as the evidence of free trade mounts. There are ups and downs, depending on whether you are working in the Hershey factory in Smith's Falls or if you're the Mexican worker who is getting a job upgrade.
We could get into a long rant about the need for unions, especially those in eastern Canada, to update their slogan books, but that's for another time. Like the hunter-gatherers' union, FFAW, that stands as both a giant anachronism, a conflict of interest that works against its members best interests, and, as the recent experience with FPI shows, part of the cabal of business and government interests working together - even if inadvertently - to break up Fishery Products International, all the while blaming it on someone else.
In the meantime, take a quick look at NUPGE's little piece. Then go read the stuff at AIMS and make up your mind.
Maybe when you're done, you can give some thought to why people seem happy with international free trade (ok. NUPGE isn't, I know.) but want to grab the nearest pitchfork when someone promotes inter-provincial free trade.
25 February 2007
Defining a fair share of oil and gas revenue
Wade Locke's presentation to a Harris Centre public meeting last November is now available through Newfoundland Quarterly as a five page article.
To start with, Locke notes the vagueness of the "fair share" position:
Then there is Locke's consideration of the value of timely development:
Locke noted in his presentation that oil revenues account for more than 18% of the provincial government's total annual revenue. However, Locke doesn't point out that if one looks at own source revenues, i.e. the provincial government's direct revenues, not including transfers from Ottawa, offshore revenues account for about 26% of the government's haul.
Locke's presentation was specifically aimed at the "fair share" question. Putting Hebron and Hibernia South in the slings (White Rose expansion may suffer the same fate) has an impact on the province's fair share, as Locke notes.
Those cancellations also have an impact on other economic issues. As noted previously, the provincial government's own economic forecasts put the province into a period of stagnation (near zero growth) or recession for 2008 and 2009. The primary cause of that downturn is the lack of development offshore.
To start with, Locke notes the vagueness of the "fair share" position:
While it is feasible to calculate the level of benefits currently received by the province, especially those flowing to the provincial treasury, and also possible to estimate how those benefits evolve over time as the industry grows and matures, it is not at all obvious to determine with any degree of precision, what would constitute a "fair share" of those benefits from the perspective of Newfoundland and Labrador. Moreover, many individuals arguing for a "fair share" of benefits fail to specify explicitly the benefits benchmark that needs to be surpassed.That pretty much describes the provincial government's approach: there is a claim but no definition. That's exactly the same way the provincial government approached the idea of principal beneficiary, oil revenues and transfer payments from Ottawa.
Then there is Locke's consideration of the value of timely development:
With all four fields being developed to their potential, provincial revenue from the oil and gas sector would peak at $1.4 billion in 2012, generate more than $1.0 billion to the provincial treasury for another 12 years [beyond that] and yield in excess of $500 million per year for at least another eight years. ...That makes it pretty clear: no Hebron and Hibernia South and benefits drop dramatically. Elsewhere in the article, Locke makes it clear that leaving the oil in the ground runs the risk of drastically diminishing benefits compared to what would accrue from timely development.
However, at this point the following caveat is important to bear in mind: these tremendous impacts may never be realized. They are contingent on Hibernia South and the Hebron project proceeding. If these developments do not proceed, then the revenue from the oil and gas industry will fall from $23 billion to $9 billion. In other words, while enhanced prosperity is within our grasp, there is a real risk it may not be realized. Furthermore, this risk is directly affected by decisions that are within the control of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. [Emphasis added]
Locke noted in his presentation that oil revenues account for more than 18% of the provincial government's total annual revenue. However, Locke doesn't point out that if one looks at own source revenues, i.e. the provincial government's direct revenues, not including transfers from Ottawa, offshore revenues account for about 26% of the government's haul.
Locke's presentation was specifically aimed at the "fair share" question. Putting Hebron and Hibernia South in the slings (White Rose expansion may suffer the same fate) has an impact on the province's fair share, as Locke notes.
Those cancellations also have an impact on other economic issues. As noted previously, the provincial government's own economic forecasts put the province into a period of stagnation (near zero growth) or recession for 2008 and 2009. The primary cause of that downturn is the lack of development offshore.
Province forecasts economic slowdown
While you won't hear it mentioned by the Premier, cabinet ministers or the administration's other spokespeople, the provincial government's own economic analysis division is forecasting an economic slowdown in the province over the next two years.
The Economy, 2006, delivered with the budget in the spring of 2006 forecast a shrinkage in the economy in 2008 and 2009. Real gross domestic product (GDP) was forecast to shrink by 1.5% each year.
Economic Review 2006, issued at the mid-way point in the current fiscal year, revised the estimates and provided projections for both nominal and real GDP. Both categories are forecast to see either negligible growth of less than one percent or a shrinkage of 1.5%.
Both documents pointed to oil production and mining output, including Voisey's Bay, as the major drivers of the economic growth into 2007.
Voisey's Bay is a deal criticized heavily by the current administration while in opposition.
The Economy, 2006, delivered with the budget in the spring of 2006 forecast a shrinkage in the economy in 2008 and 2009. Real gross domestic product (GDP) was forecast to shrink by 1.5% each year.
Economic Review 2006, issued at the mid-way point in the current fiscal year, revised the estimates and provided projections for both nominal and real GDP. Both categories are forecast to see either negligible growth of less than one percent or a shrinkage of 1.5%.Both documents pointed to oil production and mining output, including Voisey's Bay, as the major drivers of the economic growth into 2007.
Voisey's Bay is a deal criticized heavily by the current administration while in opposition.
24 February 2007
Background on legislature allowances
It took eight months, but someone finally put together an excellent backgrounder on the House of Assembly remuneration for legislators and the history of their allowances and other indemnities.
Rob Antle has it in Saturday's Telegram.
Insipid sameness, as some pretentious columnist called what's in the Telegram, turns out to be the sort of robust journalism the equally pretentious paper that prints her column just can't seem to produce. Can't produce, no matter how many times its editor claims to be doing just that.
Gimme insipid any day, if the alternative is pretentious blather.
If one article wasn't enough, there's also an excellent article by Antle in the Lifestyles section that describes the circumstances surrounding the changes to the internal economy commission legislation in 2000.
Antle gives us as much detail as we could expect in these two articles and there can be no excuses for people accepting the simplistic version of events tossed out from politicians anymore.
Still, there are four points Antle hasn't tackled in these pieces.
First, there's the curious saga of ejecting the Auditor General from the legislature in 2000. Antle notes "[Danny] Williams, leader of the PC party, was against it [barring the Auditor General from the legislature's accounts], but was not a member of the IEC."
That's true. The Leader of the Opposition is not a member of the commission; nor is the Premier. But in both cases some of the most senior members of the cabinet and the opposition caucus sit on the legislature's executive committee. Their job is to reflect the views of their caucus members and ultimately their respective bosses. It shouldn't matter that Danny didn't sit on the IEC; if he had a grip at all on his caucus he ought to have been able to handle this differently. That's especially the case of point supposedly so central to Williams' pledge of accountability and transparency.
Skip ahead to April 2004 and the Internal Economy Commission allowed the Auditor General to review the legislature's books once again. Williams takes credit for the move, but he wasn't on the commission as Premier any more than he was as Leader Op.
There's much more to this story that hasn't been told. It may never be told, but the version presented, even by Antle, doesn't explain how Williams could triumph at one point - supposedly - despite having failed earlier.
Antle doesn't explain the May 2004 bonus which Williams knew about at the time it was issued and, implicitly sanctioned. He couldn't be powerful at one moment and impotent the next without some better explanation than the one offered so far. Actually there hasn't been an explanation of this local version of the magic, reversing bullet.
Second, Antle notes changes made to the legislature's administration after April 2004. He points to cuts in allowances. Sadly, he doesn't explain how it could be that while members' allowances were cut, overspending on the budget line item that covers those allowances ballooned. According to the government's official, audited financial statements the legislature overspent its allowance line item by a total of almost $1.0 million in FY 2004 and FY 2005. The Auditor General's reports to date have only accounted for about $200,000 of that amount.
Third, Antle says that "Auditors found a 'significant spike' in overspending after the decision to bar them in 2000." The Auditor General may claim there was a spike in that year, but the Public Accounts - audited by John Noseworthy's staff and that of his predecessor Beth Marshall - showed a consistent pattern of overspending in the allowances line item from 1998 to 2005.
As the red line shows in the table above, the spike in spending occurred before the AG was barred, i.e. in FY 1999, tamped down for two fiscal years - after the AG was blocked - and then started its upward trend in 2003. That upward trend continued in 2004 and grew higher in 2005 in plain view of the Auditor General.
The yellow line in the table above represents the amounts identified by the Auditor General. His numbers may confirm his own theory, but the facts contained in the Public Accounts say something completely different. Sometimes people see what they look for, rather than what was. The "what was" may raise other questions that some would find uncomfortable.
The fourth point Antle hasn't touched is about the comptroller general. The version of events offered by both the current administration and the Auditor General is that the government's chief financial officer could not see what was going on in the legislature since the claims his office received in order to generate payments did not contain receipts.
This defies even a layman's reading of the Financial Administration Act, let alone beggar's the belief of anyone even passingly familiar with how things work inside Confederation Building's East Block.
Simply put, there's no way to run over a line item in the budget - especially by the $3.2 million total shown in the Public Accounts - without the guy who writes the cheques knowing about it. If he knew, then others knew or ought to have known.
Antle's last comment is well taken: "To appreciate why those changes are necessary, it’s important to remember how they were done in the past."
The difficulty is that even after his yeoman service in two fine articles, there are still crucial pieces of information missing.
It would seem that the only way to get to the bottom of the whole matter is through a properly constituted public inquiry.
Rob Antle has it in Saturday's Telegram.
Insipid sameness, as some pretentious columnist called what's in the Telegram, turns out to be the sort of robust journalism the equally pretentious paper that prints her column just can't seem to produce. Can't produce, no matter how many times its editor claims to be doing just that.
Gimme insipid any day, if the alternative is pretentious blather.
If one article wasn't enough, there's also an excellent article by Antle in the Lifestyles section that describes the circumstances surrounding the changes to the internal economy commission legislation in 2000.
Antle gives us as much detail as we could expect in these two articles and there can be no excuses for people accepting the simplistic version of events tossed out from politicians anymore.
Still, there are four points Antle hasn't tackled in these pieces.
First, there's the curious saga of ejecting the Auditor General from the legislature in 2000. Antle notes "[Danny] Williams, leader of the PC party, was against it [barring the Auditor General from the legislature's accounts], but was not a member of the IEC."
That's true. The Leader of the Opposition is not a member of the commission; nor is the Premier. But in both cases some of the most senior members of the cabinet and the opposition caucus sit on the legislature's executive committee. Their job is to reflect the views of their caucus members and ultimately their respective bosses. It shouldn't matter that Danny didn't sit on the IEC; if he had a grip at all on his caucus he ought to have been able to handle this differently. That's especially the case of point supposedly so central to Williams' pledge of accountability and transparency.
Skip ahead to April 2004 and the Internal Economy Commission allowed the Auditor General to review the legislature's books once again. Williams takes credit for the move, but he wasn't on the commission as Premier any more than he was as Leader Op.
There's much more to this story that hasn't been told. It may never be told, but the version presented, even by Antle, doesn't explain how Williams could triumph at one point - supposedly - despite having failed earlier.
Antle doesn't explain the May 2004 bonus which Williams knew about at the time it was issued and, implicitly sanctioned. He couldn't be powerful at one moment and impotent the next without some better explanation than the one offered so far. Actually there hasn't been an explanation of this local version of the magic, reversing bullet.
Second, Antle notes changes made to the legislature's administration after April 2004. He points to cuts in allowances. Sadly, he doesn't explain how it could be that while members' allowances were cut, overspending on the budget line item that covers those allowances ballooned. According to the government's official, audited financial statements the legislature overspent its allowance line item by a total of almost $1.0 million in FY 2004 and FY 2005. The Auditor General's reports to date have only accounted for about $200,000 of that amount.
Third, Antle says that "Auditors found a 'significant spike' in overspending after the decision to bar them in 2000." The Auditor General may claim there was a spike in that year, but the Public Accounts - audited by John Noseworthy's staff and that of his predecessor Beth Marshall - showed a consistent pattern of overspending in the allowances line item from 1998 to 2005.
As the red line shows in the table above, the spike in spending occurred before the AG was barred, i.e. in FY 1999, tamped down for two fiscal years - after the AG was blocked - and then started its upward trend in 2003. That upward trend continued in 2004 and grew higher in 2005 in plain view of the Auditor General. The yellow line in the table above represents the amounts identified by the Auditor General. His numbers may confirm his own theory, but the facts contained in the Public Accounts say something completely different. Sometimes people see what they look for, rather than what was. The "what was" may raise other questions that some would find uncomfortable.
The fourth point Antle hasn't touched is about the comptroller general. The version of events offered by both the current administration and the Auditor General is that the government's chief financial officer could not see what was going on in the legislature since the claims his office received in order to generate payments did not contain receipts.
This defies even a layman's reading of the Financial Administration Act, let alone beggar's the belief of anyone even passingly familiar with how things work inside Confederation Building's East Block.
Simply put, there's no way to run over a line item in the budget - especially by the $3.2 million total shown in the Public Accounts - without the guy who writes the cheques knowing about it. If he knew, then others knew or ought to have known.
Antle's last comment is well taken: "To appreciate why those changes are necessary, it’s important to remember how they were done in the past."
The difficulty is that even after his yeoman service in two fine articles, there are still crucial pieces of information missing.
It would seem that the only way to get to the bottom of the whole matter is through a properly constituted public inquiry.
23 February 2007
Egyptian blogger jailed
From Associated Press:
Egyptian blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil, 22, centre, is escorted by police officers from a police van and towards a court house in Alexandria, Egypt Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007. The Egyptian blogger was convicted of insulting Islam and President Hosni Mubarak and sentenced to four years in prison on Thursday in Egypt's first prosecution of a blogger. (AP Photo)
ALEXANDRIA, Egypt, Feb. 22 -- An Egyptian blogger was convicted Thursday and sentenced to four years in prison for insulting Islam and Egypt's president, sending a chill through fellow Internet writers who fear a government crackdown.
Abdel Kareem Nabil, a 22-year-old former student at Egypt's Al-Azhar University, had been a vocal secularist and sharp critic of conservative Muslims in his blog. He often lashed out at Al-Azhar -- the most prominent religious centre in Sunni Islam -- calling it "the university of terrorism" and accusing it of encouraging extremism.
Egyptian blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil, 22, centre, is escorted by police officers from a police van and towards a court house in Alexandria, Egypt Thursday, Feb. 22, 2007. The Egyptian blogger was convicted of insulting Islam and President Hosni Mubarak and sentenced to four years in prison on Thursday in Egypt's first prosecution of a blogger. (AP Photo)
Roger Grimes and the Lower Churchill
1. From The Independent, a story buried in the print edition last week but given prominence on the website.
2. As a backdrop to all this, read for yourself the draft agreement Roger, Dean and Danny are talking about.
Former premier Roger Grimes says when -- or if -- Danny Williams signs a deal to develop the lower Churchill, it will be "almost identical" to the one Grimes nearly signed with Quebec in 2002. He says the project remains undeveloped because of political games played by Danny Williams' administration.There's another story this week featuring an interview with Dean MacDonald. It won't be online until Wednesday, but as soon as your humble e-scribbler can grab a copy, there'll be a post.
"My assessment of it, quite frankly, is this: if Danny Williams ever does a lower Churchill deal," Grimes tells The Independent, "he'll do the deal I had on the table, or very close to it, because it is the only one that makes any economic sense."
2. As a backdrop to all this, read for yourself the draft agreement Roger, Dean and Danny are talking about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)