26 May 2007

This didn't take long...

Steve Kent, member of the federal Liberal party and now a Dan-didate wannabe.

Nothing like ridicule.

-srbp-

Update: Did the old ears deceive or did Steve Kent dismiss his Liberal party connections a something confined to trying to get a Liberal nomination a decade ago?

Is that what Kent told a VOCM call-in show audience?

Well, if it is, people will have to wonder about Kent.

Offal News dissected the whole question of Kent's political opportunism when Kent finally announced his intention to be a Dan-didate - six months after he'd made the decisions and six months after Bond Papers outed Kent's switch from federal Liberal to provincial Dan-didate.

You'd be amazed at how many Liberals were amazed at the Bond piece and how many dismissed it entirely. Many of those same people likely believed Brian Tobin was staying for the full second term - right up until he bailed and ran back to the mainland - even though it was an open secret the guy's campaign team was raising cash months before he made the announcement.

But anyway...

At some point, Kent needs to explain his presence at the federal Liberal convention last November.

Was he a delegate?

If so, didn't he have to sign membership papers last summer?

Oh and for those who love the silly pretensions of certain locally-owned newspapers, check this week's Scrunchions over at The Independent. Therein readers will find a lovely precis of the Offal News stuff - printed a week or so later.

Likely Indy editor Ryan Cleary took time from tireless and fearless pursuit of his agenda to read through some old notes for a story he filed for The Telegram almost a decade ago on Kent and his flirtations with the Reform Party.

Beware of junk merchants

A story originally in The Telegram has turned up on the CanWest news service across the country.

It is a short piece that only discusses some of the more outdated and, consequently humorous, sections of the City of St. John's Act that are still on the books.

There's even a quote from St. John's Mayor Andy Wells, who is shown at right in the illustration, along with the Telegram's headline on the story:
The act is the bane of Mayor Andy Wells. "A lot of the content of the act is junk," Mr. Wells said.
[Telegram Photo: Joe Gibbons]

One of the sections Wells thinks to be junk?

The section of the act empowering the province's auditor general to review the City's books and operations.

You have to go to the Telegram version for that:
The auditor general (currently John Noseworthy) - whose reports annually shed an embarrassing light on the provincial government - could turn his attention to city hall if he wanted.

But Wells said there is no need, because the city already has an external audit process which produces reports annually.

No need because an outside auditor - hired by city council - can do the job.

Like we haven't heard that one offered up by politicians before.

That was exactly the same excuse used by politicians who blocked the auditor general from reviewing the House of Assembly accounts during years when millions were allegedly misspent.

Maybe the residents of St. John's should be suspicious of a politician who considers independent review of public spending by an appointed, impartial official to be a problem.

In the meantime, they can give Wells a shovel and have him repair the city's crumbling infrastructure of roads, sidewalks and water and sewer works.

Like this little gem that erupted in the middle of the last municipal election:



-srbp-

Andy Wells: Not in the public interest

Anyone familiar with St. John's Mayor and likely Dan-didate wannabe Andy Wells, left, [Photo cbc.ca]understands that one result of his presence anywhere is that a functional entity like a board or a municipal council quickly becomes dysfunctional.

It quickly becomes distracted by the Wellsian bluster, sheer bullsh** and his trademark: vicious personal attacks against those who resist his boorish ways.

Premier Danny Williams is more than passing familiar both with Andy Wells and his ways.

The Telegram rightly notes the current situation at the offshore regulatory board, although the editorial seems to suggest dysfunction is merely a coincidence rather than a direct consequence of Wells' presence.

Ok.

Maybe it is.

But it isn't like there isn't a bit more than a coincidence.

Andy Wells shows up.

Positive stuff tends not to happen, except in spite of Wells' efforts.

Tons of histrionics.

Not much else.

Public Utilities Board.

St. John's City Council.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Regulatory Board.

So the questions that we should consider are these:

1. Given the obvious pattern, why would anyone - especially Premier Danny Williams - appoint Andy Wells to a board whose proper functioning has such a profound influence on the province's future well being?

The answer to that one might actually be easier if you consider first:

2. Whose interest is served by turning the offshore board from a functioning one (without Andy Wells) into the dysfunctional one described by the Telegram?

Frankly, your humble e-scribbler wouldn't suggest the offshore board is dysfunctional yet.

The board itself is perfectly capable of carrying out its crucial role. It has highly competent, board members with knowledge of the oil industry, with the obvious exception of Andy Wells.

Just how little Andy Wells knows must be painfully obvious at every board meeting with the likes of Hal Stanley at the table. It must be personally mortifying for Wells - a crushing blow to the considerable and distended ego - to be so painfully, so obviously out of his depth.

Maybe that's why he has resorted to the public grandstanding seen in recent days. He doesn't have anything of substance to offer.

Of course, the board's professional staff is second to none when it comes to the job of regulating offshore oil and gas development.

But given all that anyone knows about Wells' behaviour, whose interest is served by having him be the monkey-wrench in the offshore board works?

It certainly isn't in the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

-srbp-

24 May 2007

True Life

Father to nine year old daughter: "So how was school today?"

Daughter: "Pretty good."

Father: "So what did you learn?"

Daughter: "Nothing."

Father: "So remind me again why I send you to school."

Daughter: "No clue."

-srbp-

22 May 2007

How times change, Part 4

From 2003, a CBC Radio report from the provincial general election on the need for better relations with the federal government.

Among the choice quotes, Danny Williams saying this: "There's a tremendous split in the Liberal Party, federally and provincially and there seems to be a lot of internal bickering going on, you there's disputes going on between provincial members of the House of Assembly ..."

The whole thing is surreal - a word normally overused but all too accurate in this case.

-srbp-

It's going around

From Telegram editor Russell Wangersky's Tuesday column:
Overall, though, there’s one clear point that has to be made: there’s a major difference between disagreeing with someone’s questions, and disagreeing with their right to make them.

There are obviously people who disagree with my point of view — they’re welcome to their positions. The fact is, this newspaper will be printing their letters to the editor long after I’m no longer writing columns.

Disagree with my arguments — perhaps I’ll disagree right back.

But once we get to the point that all dissent is suddenly proof of disdain — or worse, proof of disloyalty to some cause — then we’re in real trouble.

And believe me, there is more written and said now about the fact that some people in our province shouldn’t be allowed to make their positions known than there has been in years.

Unanimous and constant backing of our provincial government? Let’s be careful what we wish for.
-srbp-

A wealth of knowledge

The offshore board retains a huge archive on the offshore area within its jurisdiction.

Core samples.

Oil samples.

Gas samples.

A host of paper and electronic records.

And soon the paper and electronic stuff will be available through a computer database.

This is one of the best kept secrets in the province. Your humble e-scribbler has had an idea on how this wealth of knowledge could be made available to people interested in the offshore, but who aren't researchers or oil and gas companies.

Maybe it's time to make the pitch.
-srbp-

Fish on the Pill?

Ok.

So Sue and Gus are gonna have to rethink this "it's all Ottawa's fault" theory they've been running on all along.

Turns out all that estrogen pumped down the toilet from women on The Pill has been shagging up icthyan reproduction.

What will they do now that it isn't a giant conspiracy?

Likely blame Ottawa - which regulates prescription medicine - for failing to do complete environmental studies and predict that 45 years after the introduction of the artificial contraceptive pill that it would adversely affect fish spawning.

Yeah, it's all Ottawa's fault Gus' fishing boats broke the law.

And if they didn't? Well, it wasn't the fishing boat skippers who were wrong.

Nor were the company executives wrong for allowing high-grading.

Nope.

It was the feds' fault for not catching the crooks in the first place.

Try that argument on St. Peter, Gus and see how far it gets you on violations of The Big Ten.

-srbp-

Just askin'...

When will Steve in Kabul not be news?

Maybe Harper's planning to run in the Afghan general election.

He spends more time in Kabul than in Kitchener or Kamloops.

Maybe Canada and Afghanistan could trade. We could pick up Karzai and a local warlord to be named later.

We could send them Harper and one or two provincial premiers with despotic tendencies.

Might be good for both countries.

-srbp-

Let the lawyers stick to the law

Eastern Health authority listened to its lawyers last year when it disclosed only certain information about problems with its cancer screening tests.

Now the authority is caught up in a series of mea culpa briefings for news media, politicians and just about anyone else connected to this story.

But one of the results of this little fiasco was predictable: bags of publicity for the lawyers leading the class-action suit and, then inevitably, even more people suing the authority over the entire mess.

So one lesson to learn from all this?

Let the lawyer's stick to the law.

'Cause when lawyers start practicing public relations, things have a tendency to get royally shagged up.

-srbp-

21 May 2007

Pollyanna Dunderdale, part I: offshore exploration license trends

Newfoundland and Labrador's energy minister Kathy Dunderdale claims that the offering of a mere five parcels of offshore real estate in the 2007 call for exploration bids a sign of renewed interest in the province's offshore oil and gas prospects.

Specifically, she focuses on the interest in Labrador:
"This year’s Call for Bids focuses on offshore Labrador, which, up to this point has been relatively unexplored compared to other areas of our offshore. Industry obviously has confidence in the prospectivity of these parcels and this puts us on a path of having additional discoveries in this region."
In an election year and in polling season (Corporate Research Associates is in the field right now) any government would have an interest in puffing up good news or trying to create good news where a more sober analysis might lead one to something other than a pollyanna-ish conclusion.

If we take a very simple look at the overall picture, this year's call for bids is nothing to crow about. There are only five parcels in the current bid. Last year, there were twice as many.

Even with the number of parcels offered last year, the experience in 2006 is an object lesson on why we should draw conclusions on the number of licenses issued and facts related to that rather than on the number of parcels offered.

Since 1988 when the first parcels were offered, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board posts parcels for sale based on expressions of interest from likely explorers. There are rules and conditions attached to the holding of an exploration license. There are also costs associated with all of it. As we can see from the chart, the number of parcels offered is no indication of how many parcels will actually turn into licenses.
Last year, for example, NL 06-2 contained three parcels. Even though a company or companies had expressed interest in them, there were no bids received. NL 06-1 and NL 06-2 contained a total of eight parcels, with bids ultimately being received on six. In other words, only half the parcels offered actually attracted bids.

Check the years before that. There have been a whole bunch of years in which the number of parcels bid were a lot lower. If you look just at the past couple of years, you might even believe that things are getting better. The lines go up and up is good.

Well, maybe yes; maybe no. If we look at licenses (bids) as a percentage of parcels offered, we see some interesting numbers. These really clarify the relationships noted in the first chart. Out of the 16 years in which lands have been offered for sale since 1988, bids matched offers in only five cases or 31%. Another five cases fall above the 60% line. The remainder are below 60%.

If we extrapolate that data, we might reasonably project that at least three parcels will be bid at the end of this whole thing sometime in the fall. That would put this year's land sale at the bottom end of the chart. It's hardly encouraging at all. Even if the entire number of parcels in this sale were turned into licenses, we'd still be in the bottom portion of our license experience.Another way to look at offshore would be a look at the money bid. The next chart shows that over the past three years, that even though there is a minor upswing in the number of licenses issued, the dollar value has dropped.

Dollar values are a gauge of costs involved in exploration but they also reflect the level of interest and competition. In a period of high interest and high competition, bids will increase. When interest is waning or there is relatively little overall interest due to costs, bids decrease.

In the early 1990s for example, when oil prices were low and the western economies were in recession, the bids were low. There were even two years in which no lands were offered. No one was interested.

By contrast, if you look at the period after the basic royalty regime was announced, the dollar bids, the number of parcels offered and the number of licenses issued was high across the board. Even with high exploration costs - those things are pretty much fixed - and a relatively low price for oil with equally low forecasts, companies were interested in the local offshore.

That's not a coincidence. These three points are linked. A globally competitive royalty regime produced interest from the investment community. it's also important to note that in the same time frame, the operators on the last major oil field discovered to date also returned to the Newfoundland offshore and began examining how to get a very costly field into production.

When poorly informed commentators talk about fallow field legislation and mention Hebron, they fail to notice crucial facts. Hebron is heavy, sour crude in heavily fragmented structures. It will be expensive to develop - compared to the three other fields - and it will also get a lower price on the market. Oil prices are publicly quoted based on light sweet. Heavy sour sells at prices lower than than that. Heavy sour is also more costly to refine and produces relatively fewer end products for a given amount of crude at the start.

Add that together and you can see why Hebron was considered non-commercial for most of the 25 years since it was discovered. A combination of factors, not the least of which was a stable, competitive royalty regime and the investment returned.

Is the current land sale a sign of great things to come, as suggested by the provincial natural resources minister.

Not really.

It isn't a sign of good or bad times, necessarily.

In part II we'll take a look at the specific parcels offered in this sale.

-srbp-

19 May 2007

That's Riche

riche (n): an overwrought use of an inappropriate analogy, based on the writer's obvious and complete ignorance of world and local history; to repeatedly display ignorance by persisting in the use of said inappropriate analogy; to confuse fiction with fact.

Alternately, to believe a work of fiction is actually a documentary.

As in: "That's riche" or "He pulled a riche" or "Of course, Confederation was a plot. Didn't you see Secret Nation?"

As in this letter to the editor of the Telegram from Ed Riche.

-sbrp-

Andy Wells to run?

Steve Kent decided around Christmas to run for the House of Assembly.

He didn't formally declare until yesterday.

A week after he spoke at the Rally for Danny.

In the meantime, he had a few things, including a boundary dispute, to keep his profile up there as a fighting Mount Pearler.

Follow so far?

Good.

Mayor Andy Wells.

Being his usual annoying, abrasive - and uninformed - self.

Behaving at the offshore regulatory board the same way he used to carry on at the public utilities border 20 years ago. Insulting people with terms that could be better used to describe himself.

Same boring stuff.

Someone leaked a letter to CBC Radio from the chair of the offshore board complaining about Wells. Wasn't the federal minister. Likely wasn't the provincial minister. Definitely wasn't the offshore board.

Who's left?

The same guy who leaked the story of his failed nomination for the top job at the board in the first place?

Good guess.

You see the same letter wound up in the hands of the Independent along with a marvelous, long-winded interview full of quotes.

But here's the thing.

The whole issue didn't need to pop up in the public domain right now. After all the letter was written almost a month ago and the incident involved goes back months before that.

So it gets the thoughts flowing.

If one mayor in the region is running for Danny, maybe the other big mayor will be running for him as well. Maybe this is just another one of those cheesy little stunts to keep Andy Wells' name in the news. Lord knows fixing the streets wouldn't be quite as newsworthy as Wells calling someone a hack, a word incidentally which describes the mayor to a tee.

So where would he run?

In Kent's case, both his intentions and his seat choice were wrapped up in a neat little bow, right next to the "it's all about leadership" crap that he would use to explain away what appears to many to be a track record of political opportunism.

In Well's case - if he were to run - there are actually a couple of options.

St. John's East is a safe Tory seat. It's currently held by intergovernmental affairs minister John Ottenheimer. Now Ottenheimer - surely one of the finest cabinet ministers in a while in this province - is not expected to run again.

But Andy doesn't quite fit the St. John's east profile.

That's a seat better suited to say, Dean MacDonald.

(Now there's an announcement that wouldn't surprise anyone. All that would be left to complete the set after that is a seat for Ken and job for Mel. Call it Cable Newfoundland and Labrador. An unregulated political monopoly. But I digress.)

Anyway, the seat most likely to suit any ambitions Andy might have would be the one currently held by the New Democrat leader, Lorraine Michael.

So there you have it. Speculation of the week. Andy Wells will be running for Danny in Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

And some smart bunny out there will undoubtedly connect up the rest of the political dots federally and provincially on his or her own.

The follies continue: yet another two week delay in the spending scandal report

The report by Chief Justice Derek Green into pay and benefits for members of the House of Assembly has been delayed three times so far.

It has always been promised within two weeks.

It's delayed again.

And yes, you guessed it.

It should be delivered within two weeks.

At the same time, the Premier's Office is not committing to implementing the report before the next election.

You see this is what happens when people get involved who pay no attention to the existing law and past practice.

Chief Justice Green's little investigation is a completely bizarre - and unconstitutional? - effort to circumvent the established process and place control of pay for the legislature in the hands of the executive branch of government.

It is a dodgy constitutional proposition even if it isn't outright unconstitutional.

There was already a mechanism established and used for decades to handle pay and benefits. The same process was used in 1989 to set up the Morgan commission, It worked. There were tight rules and definitions that were followed.

Immediately after a general election, the House of Assembly would appoint a commission with the powers of a public inquiry to establish pay and other forms of remuneration for legislators. The commissioner would report within 90 days.

As set out by law, in black and white for all to read and understand.

That system worked until 1996, when the current Premier's stylistic predecessor and his colleagues tossed it out the window.

They decided to make the rules up as they go along.

And basically, that's what the current Premier is doing.

Making the rules up as he goes along.

And that is wrong.

There was never any legitimate reason to appoint Chief Justice Green to this little project.

That is, unless there was some reason to be concerned what would turn up if someone had the powers of a public inquiry.

Chief Justice Green was deliberately denied those powers by the Premier and the rest of cabinet.

And so we wait yet again with no commitments to act on the highly improper report even when it is received.

because there are no rules.

And that's been problem in the House of Assembly since 1996.

Everyone thinks the rules apply to everyone else.

But him.

-srbp-

Background: The Internal Economy Commission Act.

Inquiry re salaries, etc.

13. (1) The House of Assembly may by resolution appoint, upon those terms and conditions that are set out in the resolution, an independent commission of not more than 3 persons to conduct an inquiry and prepare a report respecting the indemnities, allowances and salaries to be paid to members of the House of Assembly.

(2) The persons appointed under subsection (1) shall have all and may exercise all the powers, privileges and immunities of persons appointed as commissioners under the Public Inquiries Act.

(3) The persons appointed under subsection (1) shall complete their inquiry and deliver their report containing recommendations to the speaker within 90 days of the commission's appointment.

(4) The speaker, upon receipt of the report containing the recommendations of the persons appointed under subsection (1), shall refer the recommendations to the commission as soon as possible following the receipt of them and the commission shall implement the recommendations with or without the changes the commission considers appropriate.

(5) [Rep. by 1999 c14 s2]

18 May 2007

Ouch!

Offal News on Steve Kent.

Wells to offshore board chair: "He can get stuffed on that."

In a situation that is likely no surprise to anyone, St. John's mayor Andy Wells is in hot water with the chairman of the offshore regulatory board.

CBC News is reporting that Max Ruelokke, chairman and chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Board complaining about comments made by Wells in a recent oil magazine article. Wells, who is a provincial appointee to the board, reportedly called the board "incompetent" in its recent handling of a development application.

The provincial government vetoed the board's approval claiming a lack of information, even though the provincial government did nothing while the application was in process to obtain the information it claimed it needed.

In January, the board took the unprecedented step of releasing its decision and associated correspondence, although the documents have been removed from the board's website.
"He can get stuffed on that," Wells said.

"He's not going to be telling me how I'm going to respond to any issues that come before this board. I'm not going to stand by and allow some bureaucratic hack to tell me what I can and cannot say on matters of public interest," he said.
Wells was Premier Danny Williams surprise choice in 2005 to head the board, coming as it did despite the fact that the selection process agreed to by both the federal and provincial governments was well under way.

Wells didn't get the job, even after a second process as established under the Atlantic Accord (1985).

Wells has commented publicly on the decision previously.

-srbp-

Punt O'Connor now

If anyone needs to see a perfect excuse as to why the country needs a new defence minister, consider his testimony to the House of Commons committee reviewing defence estimates.

Most of Gordon O'Connor's answers to questions are meaningless talking points. In fact for significant chunks of the questioning, O'Connor repeats the same lines over and over and over again.

No substance.

No content.

It is astonishing the number of responses that are merely four or five short sentences in length.

The most typical answer in Gordo's exchange with Labrador member of parliament Todd Russell?

"Mr. Chair, when the government makes the decision on precise commitments, the announcements will be made."

This is a minister who can in no way be accused of being in control of his portfolio. He clearly cannot command a brief, and one would venture that his course report in minister training school likely would have said: "people will follow this minister if only out of idle curiosity."

O'Connor has likely bogged his office and it will take more than a couple of strong hands and an armoured recovery vehicle to get the former tank driver out of his current mess.

O'Connor's performance is evidence of a minister incapable of coping with the management of one of the largest and most important departments in the Government of Canada.

Memo to PMO: Punt O'Connor now.

That action alone will do more to rebuild the Canadian Forces than any cash ever spent.

-sbrp-

Sanford looking at disappointing first quarter results

From the New Zealand Herald:
Fish exporter Sanford warned of a disappointing first half result, after a high New Zealand dollar ate into profit and weaker United States markets dampened sales.

Revenue was down 2 per cent for the six months ended March 31, as disappointing sales in the second quarter reversed a 15 per cent rise in the first three months.

...
Profit would be boosted by a one-off gain of over $6m on the sale of Sanford's Argentine investment.

Proposals to sell the major assets in its 15-per cent owned Fishery Products in Canada were under consideration. If concluded, the sales could result in a one-off gain of about $20m, [Sanford managing director Eric] Barratt said.

-srbp-

Exxon returns to Timor Sea

Oil giant ExxonMobil is farming in on a prospect in the Timor Sea, marking a return to the region for the company after a decade's absence.
The well will be drilled beginning in September by the new Wilcraft jackup rig.

An Exxon spokesman yesterday described Marina as an exciting prospect. The farm-in with a junior was a clear sign of the company's enthusiasm. In recent years Exxon has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in exploration and development in Australia, mostly associated with the Bass Strait oilfields but also in re-establishing an exploration position in northern and western Australian waters in partnership with Chevron and Shell.
-srbp-

Rio Tinto mans barricades

The Australian reports that, faced with increasing speculation that the company will be the subject of a takeover bid or takeover bids, Rio Tinto has instructed its financial advisor, Morgan Stanley, to prepare a defense strategy.
Rio has "refreshed" Morgan Stanley's existing mandate in order to be prepared for any possible bid, an industry source told The Australian. The company refused to comment. Morgan Stanley's global mining industry adviser in London is Peter Bacchus, who spearheaded WMC's takeover defence against Xstrata in 2005 when he was based in Australia with Citigroup.
-srbp-