Lono calls Ellsworth an amateur.
That's obvious.
How will any citizen of St. John's trust this overly ambitious fellow, again?
-srbp-
06 June 2007
Will Ron recover his credibility?
Offal News' Simon Lono takes a look at a controversy swirling around newbie councillor Ron Ellsworth and his different stories about who sponsored a poll done recently on possible mayoral candidates.
Lono calls Ellsworth an amateur.
That's obvious.
How will any citizen of St. John's trust this overly ambitious fellow, again?
Lono calls Ellsworth an amateur.
That's obvious.
How will any citizen of St. John's trust this overly ambitious fellow, again?
Stelco sells stake in Wabush to Consolidated Thompson
From the Globe and Mail:
Stelco Inc., which slapped a "For Sale" on its door last week, is selling its stake in the Wabush iron ore mine joint venture for an estimated $163.4-million as part of its efforts to "surface value" for shareholders.
As its annual meeting was getting under way Wednesday morning, the Hamilton, Ont., steel maker, announced it has struck a deal to sell its 44.6 per cent stake in the venture to Consolidated Thompson Mines Ltd. (CLM) of Toronto.
-srbp-
I am Big Oil
The small-minded will no doubt take the headline as an admission of the scurrilous crap they have been circulating about your humble e-scribbler.
Not sorry to disappoint.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is running a series of television spots highlighting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working in the local and gas industry.
At some point, I'll take a closer look at these videos from the standpoint of message and impact, but for now, here they are:
Not sorry to disappoint.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is running a series of television spots highlighting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working in the local and gas industry.
At some point, I'll take a closer look at these videos from the standpoint of message and impact, but for now, here they are:
The Globe on bridge building
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are surely agog with the attention paid by the Globe and Mail to the province's offshore oil and gas industry.
First the story on Tuesday that contained little in the way of new information and missed a great deal of other stuff. There's a Bond commentary with a link to the first Globe story.
Now on Wednesday a piece focusing on Hydro chief executive Ed Martin and his supposed role of building bridges between the major oil companies and the provincial government.
The Globe parses the core issue reasonably well: there are two different perspectives with two contending objectives.
The role attributed to Martin is difficult to confirm. Certainly, he is an experienced oil and gas industry executive and he can certainly understand how the industry operates. How much he is able to do in building any bridges between the two perspectives is less clear. As NOIA's outgoing president Ted Howell put it in the Globe piece:
More importantly, though, there appears to be a fundamental disagreement between industry and government over what shape the equity takes. That point is found only in the last paragraph of the story: the oil companies would expect that a state-owned enterprise would farm in, that is, buy in and take the risks everyone else takes.
That's essentially what occurs in some other places, like Norway, where the government's oil and gas company Statoil operates in the private sector like all the other companies in the business. Statoil, now merged with Norsk Hydro, has been able to expand its operations outside Norway and works globally with private sector companies and other state-owned oil and gas enterprises.
The alternative - the one that appears to be government's intention - is to add the equity position onto government's royalty regime. That's where the problem starts and it is at the core of why the Hebron deal failed.
As Bond Papers has noted previously, one of the major philosophical divides between the parties on Hebron centred on Ed Martin's conflicting roles as the chief tax and benefits negotiator for the province on the one hand and then his position as a potential business partner on the other.
The two interests are fundamentally incompatible, to some minds. As an operator, the concern would be about controlling costs and maximizing profitability. As the government's agent, the goal would be to maximize local benefits through royalties, jobs and - as in government's original Hebron demand - expensive capital projects that may not be required except to meet the political demand.
The Globe missed that entirely, except for what can read into the comments from Ed Martin:
Ask Ed Martin or Danny Williams whether the energy company will acquire licenses and operate like any other oil business and you'll likely hear the reply that that option hasn't been ruled out.
Ask about farming in - that is, buying the equity stake - and you'll hear that government intends to pay for its share. There has not been any indication of how it intends to pay for the share. Buying in occurs all the time. It's a straight-up business transaction and it needn't be limited formally to five percent, 10% or any specific level.
It's just plain odd that government would insist on any specific amount in every project. On that level, government's demand looks like the sort of stuff one gets from developing countries where oil and gas is a political issue, a nationalist issue. It isn't about how the state-owned oil and gas company can get into the industry, make cash and then return the benefit of that cash to the owner in just the same way that a private sector company returns profit to its shareholders.
One way follows the Norwegian approach. The other way is the Venezuelan one.
Resolving that confusion would likely do more to re-start the Hebron talks than any supposed back channel discussions between Ed Martin and his former colleagues at Petro-Canada.
Maybe the answer will be in the energy plan.
Then again, as the energy plan becomes more of a political document than a business one, maybe it won't.
First the story on Tuesday that contained little in the way of new information and missed a great deal of other stuff. There's a Bond commentary with a link to the first Globe story.
Now on Wednesday a piece focusing on Hydro chief executive Ed Martin and his supposed role of building bridges between the major oil companies and the provincial government.
The Globe parses the core issue reasonably well: there are two different perspectives with two contending objectives.
The role attributed to Martin is difficult to confirm. Certainly, he is an experienced oil and gas industry executive and he can certainly understand how the industry operates. How much he is able to do in building any bridges between the two perspectives is less clear. As NOIA's outgoing president Ted Howell put it in the Globe piece:
"He knows how the companies evaluate projects, and he brings that to the table with government. But ultimately, it is going to be the Premier's call in terms of what he feels is the appropriate deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador."The main problem in building the bridge may well be determining how wide is the span that needs to be built. The Globe story gets it monumentally wrong.
Industry officials warn that, if the province insists on making unrealistic demands, the international oil companies will simply not explore or develop in the waters off Newfoundland. In a nutshell, the message is: Five per cent of nothing equals nothing.The equity position demand is more like 10%, not five. The government has stated - and as the Globe reported on Tuesday - that the equity demand in the forthcoming energy plan will be more than 5%.
More importantly, though, there appears to be a fundamental disagreement between industry and government over what shape the equity takes. That point is found only in the last paragraph of the story: the oil companies would expect that a state-owned enterprise would farm in, that is, buy in and take the risks everyone else takes.
That's essentially what occurs in some other places, like Norway, where the government's oil and gas company Statoil operates in the private sector like all the other companies in the business. Statoil, now merged with Norsk Hydro, has been able to expand its operations outside Norway and works globally with private sector companies and other state-owned oil and gas enterprises.
The alternative - the one that appears to be government's intention - is to add the equity position onto government's royalty regime. That's where the problem starts and it is at the core of why the Hebron deal failed.
As Bond Papers has noted previously, one of the major philosophical divides between the parties on Hebron centred on Ed Martin's conflicting roles as the chief tax and benefits negotiator for the province on the one hand and then his position as a potential business partner on the other.
The two interests are fundamentally incompatible, to some minds. As an operator, the concern would be about controlling costs and maximizing profitability. As the government's agent, the goal would be to maximize local benefits through royalties, jobs and - as in government's original Hebron demand - expensive capital projects that may not be required except to meet the political demand.
The Globe missed that entirely, except for what can read into the comments from Ed Martin:
"So from a strategic perspective the province is crystal clear: Premier Williams wants to make sure he gets this right in terms of how these developments occur for the benefit of the province. And for that, you need a seat at the table."The Globe also missed the obvious: for all the talk about a seat at the table and the strategic importance of oil and gas, the provincial government still hasn't figured out exactly what role Martin's new energy company will fill or how that so-called seat at the table will be acquired.
Ask Ed Martin or Danny Williams whether the energy company will acquire licenses and operate like any other oil business and you'll likely hear the reply that that option hasn't been ruled out.
Ask about farming in - that is, buying the equity stake - and you'll hear that government intends to pay for its share. There has not been any indication of how it intends to pay for the share. Buying in occurs all the time. It's a straight-up business transaction and it needn't be limited formally to five percent, 10% or any specific level.
It's just plain odd that government would insist on any specific amount in every project. On that level, government's demand looks like the sort of stuff one gets from developing countries where oil and gas is a political issue, a nationalist issue. It isn't about how the state-owned oil and gas company can get into the industry, make cash and then return the benefit of that cash to the owner in just the same way that a private sector company returns profit to its shareholders.
One way follows the Norwegian approach. The other way is the Venezuelan one.
Resolving that confusion would likely do more to re-start the Hebron talks than any supposed back channel discussions between Ed Martin and his former colleagues at Petro-Canada.
Maybe the answer will be in the energy plan.
Then again, as the energy plan becomes more of a political document than a business one, maybe it won't.
-srbp-
05 June 2007
Apropos of a diversion
When a government delegation travels abroad, it will surely spend money.
But when an opposition party raises a question on travel spending, it should do some homework to get the goods.
Like say in the 1980s.
Collecting information requests on travel and discovering cabinet ministers billing visits to German strip clubs.
The recent kerfuffle about the ground transportation costs for a provincial government excursion to Ireland wound up falling flat as the government simply released the invoice covering the van and the limos.
What appeared to be $24,000 turns out to be about $10,000. The amount may seem large but under the circumstances it isn't really excessive.
Still, the whole thing seems to warrant a limerick: a silly rendition of the issue that occupied so much of the Premier's attention and that of the opposition at a time when other matters should have been foremost on their minds.
So, for the nonsense of taxi rentals when the hydro bill and the energy bill quietly slip through the House, here's a little nonsense rhyme:
But when an opposition party raises a question on travel spending, it should do some homework to get the goods.
Like say in the 1980s.
Collecting information requests on travel and discovering cabinet ministers billing visits to German strip clubs.
The recent kerfuffle about the ground transportation costs for a provincial government excursion to Ireland wound up falling flat as the government simply released the invoice covering the van and the limos.
What appeared to be $24,000 turns out to be about $10,000. The amount may seem large but under the circumstances it isn't really excessive.
Still, the whole thing seems to warrant a limerick: a silly rendition of the issue that occupied so much of the Premier's attention and that of the opposition at a time when other matters should have been foremost on their minds.
So, for the nonsense of taxi rentals when the hydro bill and the energy bill quietly slip through the House, here's a little nonsense rhyme:
While on a wee trip to the Isle
to develop the Irish biz file,
they couldn't ride burros
so for five thousand Euros
the Taoiseach and his pals rode in style.
to develop the Irish biz file,
they couldn't ride burros
so for five thousand Euros
the Taoiseach and his pals rode in style.
-srbp-
Apropos of nothing in particular
According to Healy Willan, there are three kinds of limericks:
- Limericks for women and children;
- Limericks for the clergy; and,
- Limericks.
Limericks have always been a favourite of your humble e-scribbler. They allow for a certain verbal ingenuity to fit a humorous and ribald comment within a confining structure. Fitting the most meaning into the smallest space is a challenge.
If memory serves, Craig Welsh once wrote a column in the old Express lambasting the city council for appointing a poet laureate. He received an e-scribbled original limerick on the subject and true to his name never bothered to reply.
All of this is merely an introduction to a simple limerick that serves to point the uselessness of some people's use of figures to support an argument. It's funny too, and for those of gentle disposition, definitely in Willan's third category of the five-lined poem.
- Limericks for women and children;
- Limericks for the clergy; and,
- Limericks.
Limericks have always been a favourite of your humble e-scribbler. They allow for a certain verbal ingenuity to fit a humorous and ribald comment within a confining structure. Fitting the most meaning into the smallest space is a challenge.
If memory serves, Craig Welsh once wrote a column in the old Express lambasting the city council for appointing a poet laureate. He received an e-scribbled original limerick on the subject and true to his name never bothered to reply.
All of this is merely an introduction to a simple limerick that serves to point the uselessness of some people's use of figures to support an argument. It's funny too, and for those of gentle disposition, definitely in Willan's third category of the five-lined poem.
There once was a young man named Paul,
Who had a hexagonal ball.
The sum of its weight,
plus his penis, times eight,
was two thirds of three fifths of fuck all.
Who had a hexagonal ball.
The sum of its weight,
plus his penis, times eight,
was two thirds of three fifths of fuck all.
-srbp-
Has anyone seen Rossy Barbour?
If the Cal-cu-tron over at labradore is right, Danny Williams' Progressive Conservatives will take all but three seats in the fall general election.
That projection is based on the latest CRA poll results.
As an aside, does CRA poll results actually qualify as news any more? The numbers have been roughly the same for so long, it hardly seems to be new information to say that they are the same as they have been for over a year.
Anyway...
labradore wonders about the state of the current opposition and likens the whole thing to the 1966 general election. Joe Smallwood's Liberals swept all but three seats and interestingly enough, the 1966 election marked the entry to provincial politics of both Clyde Wells and John Crosbie.
The Tories at the time weren't renowned for opposing the Premier and on the Churchill Falls project, the whole thing received unanimous support of the legislature. Now times change and perspectives change.
Even people who sat at the cabinet table in the late 1960s will scarcely acknowledge today what they backed at the time.
Eh, Bill?
The pattern in local politics seems to be the emergence of a caudillo around whom virtually all rally. Smallwood. Peckford. Tobin. Williams.
In between are leaders of a different character and style.
The strong opposition suggested by labradore supposes that the members of the opposition are capable of developing or want to develop a position which is different from what the majority appears to want. This isn't a specific comment about one party or another or even the individuals involved.
Rather it is to point out that all too often the opposition members are inclined to present the sort of comment heard yesterday in the House of Assembly. The discussion was on the new energy and hydro corporation bills. The opposition parties were looking for a background briefing from the government side on what was contained in the bills. Even if a facetious comment, this line gives a clue to the fundamental problem:
Have they no staff at all?
Have they no telephones capable of reaching the assorted experts across the province who could give an analysis of the bill, gratis or for a modest sum? Do the names Bill Wells or Vic Young mean anything to anyone?
We can only expect that whatever the opposition parties manage to come up with, it will be whatever the government briefing slips them. What an amazing position for any government: to be capable of directing not only ones own members but to direct the opposition as well.
The tableau presented is breathtaking in its implications.
labradore may well be right.
If Danny Williams doesn't take every seat, he may well take all but three. For most of us pondering yesterday's events in the House, though, we may well wonder what difference that fall election would make.
The opposition today may well go the way of their predecessors from 1966.
And what difference would that make? After all, some 41 years later, some people can't even remember that they sat in cabinet at the time. Does anyone remember - or even care - who the Tory Three were?
[WJM you are out of this little trivia quiz]
That projection is based on the latest CRA poll results.
As an aside, does CRA poll results actually qualify as news any more? The numbers have been roughly the same for so long, it hardly seems to be new information to say that they are the same as they have been for over a year.
Anyway...
labradore wonders about the state of the current opposition and likens the whole thing to the 1966 general election. Joe Smallwood's Liberals swept all but three seats and interestingly enough, the 1966 election marked the entry to provincial politics of both Clyde Wells and John Crosbie.
Do you still think it's smart politics not to be vocal and unrelenting in your criticism of, and opposition to, Danny Williams?Strong opposition parties are not necessarily a feature of Newfoundland and Labrador politics and the post-1966 House of Assembly might well be a good thing to look at.
The Tories at the time weren't renowned for opposing the Premier and on the Churchill Falls project, the whole thing received unanimous support of the legislature. Now times change and perspectives change.
Even people who sat at the cabinet table in the late 1960s will scarcely acknowledge today what they backed at the time.
Eh, Bill?
The pattern in local politics seems to be the emergence of a caudillo around whom virtually all rally. Smallwood. Peckford. Tobin. Williams.
In between are leaders of a different character and style.
The strong opposition suggested by labradore supposes that the members of the opposition are capable of developing or want to develop a position which is different from what the majority appears to want. This isn't a specific comment about one party or another or even the individuals involved.
Rather it is to point out that all too often the opposition members are inclined to present the sort of comment heard yesterday in the House of Assembly. The discussion was on the new energy and hydro corporation bills. The opposition parties were looking for a background briefing from the government side on what was contained in the bills. Even if a facetious comment, this line gives a clue to the fundamental problem:
"I learn a lot better if I have someone to basically point it out."The opposition parties apparently cannot figure out what a bill means without help from the people drafting it.
Have they no staff at all?
Have they no telephones capable of reaching the assorted experts across the province who could give an analysis of the bill, gratis or for a modest sum? Do the names Bill Wells or Vic Young mean anything to anyone?
We can only expect that whatever the opposition parties manage to come up with, it will be whatever the government briefing slips them. What an amazing position for any government: to be capable of directing not only ones own members but to direct the opposition as well.
The tableau presented is breathtaking in its implications.
labradore may well be right.
If Danny Williams doesn't take every seat, he may well take all but three. For most of us pondering yesterday's events in the House, though, we may well wonder what difference that fall election would make.
The opposition today may well go the way of their predecessors from 1966.
And what difference would that make? After all, some 41 years later, some people can't even remember that they sat in cabinet at the time. Does anyone remember - or even care - who the Tory Three were?
[WJM you are out of this little trivia quiz]
-srbp-
NOIA conference: building a strong, competitive industry
NOIA's 2007 annual conference is titled East coast Canada oil and gas: building a strong, competitive industry.
Look at the speaker line-up. There are heavy-weight presenters on every major topic currently under discussion from land tenure issues (fallow field) to technological developments and harsh environments.
Nothing like starting off with a bang.
Premier Danny Williams is scheduled to deliver opening remarks on Day 1 - June 19. He'll be followed by the usual update on the past year and existing developments.
The luncheon speaker is federal energy minister Gary Lunn.
The closing keynote is former Alberta premier Ralph Klein.
It would be hard to build a stronger, potentially controversial program.
Look at the speaker line-up. There are heavy-weight presenters on every major topic currently under discussion from land tenure issues (fallow field) to technological developments and harsh environments.
Nothing like starting off with a bang.
Premier Danny Williams is scheduled to deliver opening remarks on Day 1 - June 19. He'll be followed by the usual update on the past year and existing developments.
The luncheon speaker is federal energy minister Gary Lunn.
The closing keynote is former Alberta premier Ralph Klein.
It would be hard to build a stronger, potentially controversial program.
-srbp-
Energy plan as political plan
Looking at the Globe and Mail story on the Newfoundland and Labrador energy plan, it gets easy to see just how out of touch the Globe is with what's going on outside some very narrow confines.
There isn't anything in the story that qualifies as news.
For example, the provincial government has been saying for some time what local politicos have been figuring, namely that the energy plan will be a key part of the Williams administration's nationalist platform for the fall general election.
The energy plan isn't about economic development any more. It's about politics.
That's the news in the piece, but the Globe seems to have missed it.
The energy plan will be framed as a battle between Newfoundland and Labrador and Big Oil. It will be about hanging tough and looking for what is "reasonable."
Dunderdale merely repeated to the Globe what Danny Williams has already said: Big Oil better come back to the table because once the energy plan is released, the oil companies will have to pay a lot more than they would have a couple of years ago.
It's talking smack and talking tough for domestic political consumption.
But as both Williams and Dunderdale both know already, the oil industry is taking the view expressed by Paul Barnes local manager for the petroleum producers association in the Globe piece. Equity is fine if the provincial government wants to farm in and shoulder the costs - a la Statoil and Norsk Hydro - but anything else is likely to discourage outside investment.
Predictable positions on both sides. It really doesn't matter which one is right. The energy plan is now pure politics. Pure talk.
Take, for example, the Globe referring to the tough document that will demand "at least" a 5% equity position in all future oil and gas projects in the province. By some comparisons, five percent is actually pretty small, and that's likely why the number is being tossed out there: it sounds innocuous.
But, the Globe needs to do its homework.
The real number is likely to be 10%. Word from the oil patch and other places has it that the draft natural gas royalty regime has already been handed back to the provincial government with the polite advice that the government's plans would scare away investment. That's because the 10% equity position would come on top of the considerable share of cash flows the provincial government already receives.
The chart at right shows relative shares of cash flows for the local offshore, as presented by MUN economist Wade Locke in a public presentation last fall.
All things considered, it gets fairly obvious that the Great Battle Against the Foreign Demons of 2007 isn't really the same battle of 25 years ago.
What we are talking about today are fairly fine shifts of cash that look tiny. However, those fine adjustments of cash may tip the very sensitive investment balance against exploration investment in the local oil patch for some period of time.
If the equity demand will be applied to every new development, as the Globe reports, then we may also see impacts on existing significant discoveries. Hebron is already off the table until sometime in the next decade. Hibernia South: ditto.
Small developments like Norsk Hydro's West Bonne Bay would also be affected, especially if the results of Norsk Hydro's exploration program on the field shows oil reserves are much larger than current estimates.
Even White Rose would fall under that sort of requirement. Husky Energy has been working hard to cultivate a strong, positive relationship with the Premier. However, if White Rose turns out to be larger than currently estimated, that is, if there is an opportunity for the province to get more, then that relationship could change dramatically.
Delaying those developments aren't really important as the energy plan morphs into a political document. The government's real issues are bigger and look ahead over longer time spans.
The new energy corporation is likely to become the focus of export energy developments, some of which are tied to oil and gas. It wouldn't be surprising, given the corporation's mandate, to see it take control of the Lower Churchill project which may be generating power before the middle of the next decade. Part of that project will likely be the construction of the transmission infrastructure - sub-sea cabling - that would carry electricity to markets in the United States.
The new energy corp might well be the license holder at the end of the bid for Labrador parcels next year. With some exploration work - potentially carried on by the energy corporation on its own - the natural gas available from the Gudrid, North Bjarni and Bjarni fields could double in size. That gas, as much as eight trillion cubic feet (8 tcf) including the three existing significant discoveries, could be brought ashore and used to generate electricity in a new facility on the coast of Labrador. The power would be sold down the Lower Churchill lines to markets in the United States.
None of that would really be affected by the equity issue.
That bit on the energy corporation is speculative, of course, but it certainly fits with public statements by provincial officials. It also fits the Premier's concern about shipping natural gas directly to market without some form of added local value.
All of these plays or possible plays are well in the future, of course. In the short- to medium- term, the provincial government knows that it will have significant cash flows from existing oil production. There's no risk in the rhetoric. There may not be an economic gain either, even in the longer run, but the energy plan is increasing something other than economic development.
There really isn't any risk for the provincial government in using part of the energy plan for political purposes. Whatever consequences come will come so far in the future as to be irrelevant to any of the politicians currently making decisions or likely to make decisions on these issues over the next decade.
But to give credit where credit is due, the provincial government's posturing on oil and gas - with all the distortions and misrepresentations about revenues to date and who makes what - is a masterful example of framing a discussion in a way that can't be counteracted simply by anyone, political or industrial.
It will produce the political effect desired in October.
As a political plan, the energy document is already working its magic.
As an economic plan?
Well, that remains to be seen.
There isn't anything in the story that qualifies as news.
For example, the provincial government has been saying for some time what local politicos have been figuring, namely that the energy plan will be a key part of the Williams administration's nationalist platform for the fall general election.
The energy plan isn't about economic development any more. It's about politics.
That's the news in the piece, but the Globe seems to have missed it.
The energy plan will be framed as a battle between Newfoundland and Labrador and Big Oil. It will be about hanging tough and looking for what is "reasonable."
Dunderdale merely repeated to the Globe what Danny Williams has already said: Big Oil better come back to the table because once the energy plan is released, the oil companies will have to pay a lot more than they would have a couple of years ago.
It's talking smack and talking tough for domestic political consumption.
Predictable positions on both sides. It really doesn't matter which one is right. The energy plan is now pure politics. Pure talk.
Take, for example, the Globe referring to the tough document that will demand "at least" a 5% equity position in all future oil and gas projects in the province. By some comparisons, five percent is actually pretty small, and that's likely why the number is being tossed out there: it sounds innocuous.
But, the Globe needs to do its homework.
The real number is likely to be 10%. Word from the oil patch and other places has it that the draft natural gas royalty regime has already been handed back to the provincial government with the polite advice that the government's plans would scare away investment. That's because the 10% equity position would come on top of the considerable share of cash flows the provincial government already receives.
The chart at right shows relative shares of cash flows for the local offshore, as presented by MUN economist Wade Locke in a public presentation last fall.
All things considered, it gets fairly obvious that the Great Battle Against the Foreign Demons of 2007 isn't really the same battle of 25 years ago.
What we are talking about today are fairly fine shifts of cash that look tiny. However, those fine adjustments of cash may tip the very sensitive investment balance against exploration investment in the local oil patch for some period of time.
If the equity demand will be applied to every new development, as the Globe reports, then we may also see impacts on existing significant discoveries. Hebron is already off the table until sometime in the next decade. Hibernia South: ditto.
Small developments like Norsk Hydro's West Bonne Bay would also be affected, especially if the results of Norsk Hydro's exploration program on the field shows oil reserves are much larger than current estimates.
Even White Rose would fall under that sort of requirement. Husky Energy has been working hard to cultivate a strong, positive relationship with the Premier. However, if White Rose turns out to be larger than currently estimated, that is, if there is an opportunity for the province to get more, then that relationship could change dramatically.
Delaying those developments aren't really important as the energy plan morphs into a political document. The government's real issues are bigger and look ahead over longer time spans.
The new energy corporation is likely to become the focus of export energy developments, some of which are tied to oil and gas. It wouldn't be surprising, given the corporation's mandate, to see it take control of the Lower Churchill project which may be generating power before the middle of the next decade. Part of that project will likely be the construction of the transmission infrastructure - sub-sea cabling - that would carry electricity to markets in the United States.
The new energy corp might well be the license holder at the end of the bid for Labrador parcels next year. With some exploration work - potentially carried on by the energy corporation on its own - the natural gas available from the Gudrid, North Bjarni and Bjarni fields could double in size. That gas, as much as eight trillion cubic feet (8 tcf) including the three existing significant discoveries, could be brought ashore and used to generate electricity in a new facility on the coast of Labrador. The power would be sold down the Lower Churchill lines to markets in the United States.
None of that would really be affected by the equity issue.
That bit on the energy corporation is speculative, of course, but it certainly fits with public statements by provincial officials. It also fits the Premier's concern about shipping natural gas directly to market without some form of added local value.
All of these plays or possible plays are well in the future, of course. In the short- to medium- term, the provincial government knows that it will have significant cash flows from existing oil production. There's no risk in the rhetoric. There may not be an economic gain either, even in the longer run, but the energy plan is increasing something other than economic development.
There really isn't any risk for the provincial government in using part of the energy plan for political purposes. Whatever consequences come will come so far in the future as to be irrelevant to any of the politicians currently making decisions or likely to make decisions on these issues over the next decade.
But to give credit where credit is due, the provincial government's posturing on oil and gas - with all the distortions and misrepresentations about revenues to date and who makes what - is a masterful example of framing a discussion in a way that can't be counteracted simply by anyone, political or industrial.
It will produce the political effect desired in October.
As a political plan, the energy document is already working its magic.
As an economic plan?
Well, that remains to be seen.
-srbp-
Provinces lining up against senate reform package
The Globe and Mail is following up on a story reported on the weekend by Canadian Press that the provincial premiers are raising objections to the Harper administration's senate reform proposals.
The Globe quotes extensively from a May 30, 2007 letter from Premier Danny Williams to the Prime Minister:
The Globe quotes extensively from a May 30, 2007 letter from Premier Danny Williams to the Prime Minister:
Mr. Williams asks that Mr. Harper withdraw both Bill S-4, which would impose eight-year term limits on senators, and Bill C-43, which would create a process for electing senators.
"If you are intent on Senate reform, then it must be done correctly," Mr. Williams says in the letter.
"Any changes should be carefully considered by both (federal and provincial) constitutional orders of government in the context of a national public debate. The current piecemeal and unilateral approach does not suffice."
-srbp-
Carter lands book deal
From Breakwater, the news release (issued May 28) announcing a book deal for NTV's Glen Carter:
Breakwater to publish first book from NTV's Glen Carter
Breakwater Books is pleased to announce the signing of the first book deal from award-winning reporter and NTV Evening News anchor Glen Carter. Negotiations were finalized last week for the first book, and a standing agreement remains for a potential two-book deal.
A newspaper, radio and television journalist for more than twenty-five years, Glen Carter has covered local, national and international stories as a reporter and as a six o'clock anchor.
Carter has covered a significant repertoire of newsmaking events including the mysterious crash of an American passenger jet which killed more than 250 U.S. soldiers. He's covered world leaders and royalty, including Diana, the Princess of Wales, and he once scored a rare and exclusive interview with former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.
Carter has twice skimmed the North Atlantic aboard an American Coast Guard aircraft during a sentimental quest for the grave of Titanic. In May of 2005 he wrote and played the lead role in an internet viral film which won more than a dozen world awards, including a bronze Cyberlion at Cannes. The film, which was nominated for an Emmy, has been seen by more than 40 million people worldwide.
Glen Carter can now add published author to his impressive list of credentials. Carter's international experience and keen reporting abilities have equipped him with story-making skills in the same vein as Tom Clancy and John Grisham.
Angels of Maradona is a fast-paced action novel delving into international crime in various locales. Set in Columbia, Canada and the US, the novel boasts murder, romance, mystery, the illegal drug trade and global politics in a sleek and clever writing style.
Scheduled for publication in early 2008, Angels of Maradona by Glen Carter is anticipated to be one of Breakwater's most noteworthy spring releases.
-srbp-
04 June 2007
Jamieson to seek father's old seat
Roger Jamieson, son of former deputy prime minister and foreign affairs minister Don Jamieson will be seeking the Liberal nomination in the federal riding his father once represented.
Jamieson is a former media executive. He currently operates a tourist resort and has extensive experience in the tourism industry. Jamieson is past president of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.
Jamieson is a former media executive. He currently operates a tourist resort and has extensive experience in the tourism industry. Jamieson is past president of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.
-srbp-
PAL to train at Goose Bay
Provincial Aerospace will conduct training at Goose Bay for crews providing ocean surveillance to the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.
The provincial government is spending $250,000 to support the training, described as a demonstration project in the government news release.
In mid-2006, Provincial Aerospace's maritime surveillance division won a US$100 million contract to conduct surveillance over Dutch territories in the Caribbean using two modified Dash-8 aircraft.
The provincial government is spending $250,000 to support the training, described as a demonstration project in the government news release.
In mid-2006, Provincial Aerospace's maritime surveillance division won a US$100 million contract to conduct surveillance over Dutch territories in the Caribbean using two modified Dash-8 aircraft.
-srbp-
Wow! Green delivers whopper.
Forget anything said or heard before at Bond Papers on Chief Justice Derek Green's report on legislative indemnities.
The thing runs 1300 pages and contains 80 recommendations, according to early media reports.
Just on that basis alone it appears to be well worth the wait.
The thing runs 1300 pages and contains 80 recommendations, according to early media reports.
Just on that basis alone it appears to be well worth the wait.
-srbp-
03 June 2007
New Hydro Corp; same problem
While legislation creating a new Crown-owned energy corporation and a new version of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were announced last week with the words that "energy investments in non-regulated activities will not affect electricity rates", a closer look at the legislation shows the problem will still exist.
Bond Papers noted last May that changes made to existing legislation at that time created the potential that residents of the province would pay for government's energy policy through electricity rates.
Specifically, Bond Papers pointed out the interaction of two specific changes. First, changes to the Hydro Corporation Act not only allowed Hydro to invest in oil and gas projects but also provided that Hydro may undertake any other activity approved by cabinet. Second, a change to section 24 of the Electrical Power Control Act exempted Hydro from the restriction that, as a utility company, it could only be involved in electricity generation and power delivery.
The new Hydro-electric Corporation Act includes the same fundamental problem. While the oil and gas portions of the existing statute are removed, section 5(2) establishes that
Given that the provincial government is now creating a new energy corporation to take on the non-regulated activities of its energy program, there is no apparent reason to give Hydro the power to engage in any activities other than electricity generation and distribution.
Two new bills in front of the House of Assembly re-organize the Hydro corporation and create a new energy corporation. However, the fundamental problem identified by Bond Papers last May - namely non-electricity investments affecting electricity rates still remains. The current administration may not intend to implement changes to the Electrical Power Control Act enacted last year. However, leaving the legal authority to do so on the statute books may create an unnecessary temptation on some future date.
Bond Papers noted last May that changes made to existing legislation at that time created the potential that residents of the province would pay for government's energy policy through electricity rates.
Specifically, Bond Papers pointed out the interaction of two specific changes. First, changes to the Hydro Corporation Act not only allowed Hydro to invest in oil and gas projects but also provided that Hydro may undertake any other activity approved by cabinet. Second, a change to section 24 of the Electrical Power Control Act exempted Hydro from the restriction that, as a utility company, it could only be involved in electricity generation and power delivery.
The new Hydro-electric Corporation Act includes the same fundamental problem. While the oil and gas portions of the existing statute are removed, section 5(2) establishes that
Notwithstanding subsection (1), the corporation may engage in those other activities that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may approve.There are no changes to the Electrical Power Control Act. While the 2006 amendment that exempts Hydro from that section of the Act is not in force, it would merely a simple administrative procedure for the section to take effect.
Given that the provincial government is now creating a new energy corporation to take on the non-regulated activities of its energy program, there is no apparent reason to give Hydro the power to engage in any activities other than electricity generation and distribution.
Two new bills in front of the House of Assembly re-organize the Hydro corporation and create a new energy corporation. However, the fundamental problem identified by Bond Papers last May - namely non-electricity investments affecting electricity rates still remains. The current administration may not intend to implement changes to the Electrical Power Control Act enacted last year. However, leaving the legal authority to do so on the statute books may create an unnecessary temptation on some future date.
-srbp-
Being Cassandra
Professor Michael Enachescu has taken some considerable umbrage at the post "Pollyanna Dunderdale 2", specifically for the remarks that began the commentary. At his request, his first reaction is contained in a comment at the end of that post.
Fair enough.
At the outset, let's make it clear that the comments were not meant in anyway to question Professor Enachescu's competence as a geoscientist or his knowledge of the oil and gas industry locally or globally.
Rather, the CBC story linked in the original post and the interview [ram file] connected to it seemed to be exceedingly optimistic in dealing with the prospect of exploration returning to Labrador because four parcels offshore Labrador had been offered for bids in the most recent land sale by the offshore regulatory board.
In the interview Professor Enachescu said that we "have to be very cautious" in projecting what will occur offshore Labrador since exploration must come first. That's considerably different than the implication of the comment used by CBC in the online story. Professor Enachescu did not take issue with the quote so let's work on the basis that the comment was accurately quoted.
On the point about exploration and development, Professor Enachescu is absolutely correct: exploration will determine what if any resources are available. That knowledge must come before any development.
In the interview, he also described the potential of the parcels up for bids containing at least as much in the way of natural gas, natural gas liquids and oil as the existing significant discoveries at North Bjarni, Bjarni and Gudrid.
If that turns out to be the case, there would be a total of around eight trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the area.
Put another way, the natural gas available for development in the area would be about double the amount of gas in the Snohvit field currently being developed in the Barents Sea. Ted Howell noted Snohvit as an example of an offshore gas field located well offshore in a harsh environment. Mr. Howell pointed out that a number of factors have changed to attract the first interest in exploring offshore Labrador in two decades.
That is not really the issue, however.
Rather, the point of the two posts on the land parcels was that other factors may well see the four parcels going without bids.
The most significant factor would be the provincial royalty and benefits regime. The gas royalty regime - the one directly relevant to the Labrador parcels - has yet to be revealed. One of the reasons bids will close on those parcels in August 2008 may well be to give time for companies to assess the impact of that regime.
If the regime increases the costs of development beyond the point at which companies are willing to invest, then the parcels will lay fallow. Alternately, if the regime is one thing but the provincial government reserves the right to add costs, then the parcels may sit fallow because the financial environment is too uncertain in comparison to other places. Exploration investment in those cases will go elsewhere.
Companies may still take up the parcels. As noted in the earlier post, they may decide that the potential resources in the parcel would justify the risk and whatever royalty and benefits regime the province imposes. Companies may also decide that no matter what the royalty regime occurs, the long lead times involved - nine years to complete exploration and whatever time after that to develop any significant discovery found - may well give further opportunity to change the provincial royalty regime.
Look ahead to 2020. The existing offshore oil fields will be drawing down. The provincial government will be faxing increased costs owing to the impact of demographics. In the absence of any significant new offshore development, the financial pressures on a provincial government a decade and more hence may well cause that future government to amend whatever royalty regime is announced this year.
Exploration indeed must precede development. But, if we look at the issues potentially affecting private sector interest in the fields, it is much too early to determine whether we will even get to exploration in the first place.
The other possible interest in those fields, as noted in the earlier post, may be from the province's new energy corporation. That's the second possible reason for the long time bids will be open. As we learned last week, the province's new energy corporation will be running by early in the New Year. Exploration costs are well within the financial means of the energy corporation and the long lead time on this bid process would allow the new energy corporation seven months to sort out any interest it has in acquiring exploration rights.
Once again, though, there are simply too many unknowns to project with any accuracy what will happen with those parcels. We may have a better idea the closer we get to August and of course we will know with certainty on August 2.
In any event, and as much as we might wish it were otherwise, it is far too soon to be discussing the return of oil and gas exploration to the Labrador shelf. It is tempting to be optimistic - particularly in the wake of Hebron and Hibernia South - but experience with the local offshore over 25 years ( and including those two spectacular setbacks) should give us all an abundance of prudence and caution when it comes to projecting what will occur.
Fair enough.
At the outset, let's make it clear that the comments were not meant in anyway to question Professor Enachescu's competence as a geoscientist or his knowledge of the oil and gas industry locally or globally.
Rather, the CBC story linked in the original post and the interview [ram file] connected to it seemed to be exceedingly optimistic in dealing with the prospect of exploration returning to Labrador because four parcels offshore Labrador had been offered for bids in the most recent land sale by the offshore regulatory board.
In the interview Professor Enachescu said that we "have to be very cautious" in projecting what will occur offshore Labrador since exploration must come first. That's considerably different than the implication of the comment used by CBC in the online story. Professor Enachescu did not take issue with the quote so let's work on the basis that the comment was accurately quoted.
On the point about exploration and development, Professor Enachescu is absolutely correct: exploration will determine what if any resources are available. That knowledge must come before any development.
In the interview, he also described the potential of the parcels up for bids containing at least as much in the way of natural gas, natural gas liquids and oil as the existing significant discoveries at North Bjarni, Bjarni and Gudrid.
If that turns out to be the case, there would be a total of around eight trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the area.
Put another way, the natural gas available for development in the area would be about double the amount of gas in the Snohvit field currently being developed in the Barents Sea. Ted Howell noted Snohvit as an example of an offshore gas field located well offshore in a harsh environment. Mr. Howell pointed out that a number of factors have changed to attract the first interest in exploring offshore Labrador in two decades.
That is not really the issue, however.
Rather, the point of the two posts on the land parcels was that other factors may well see the four parcels going without bids.
The most significant factor would be the provincial royalty and benefits regime. The gas royalty regime - the one directly relevant to the Labrador parcels - has yet to be revealed. One of the reasons bids will close on those parcels in August 2008 may well be to give time for companies to assess the impact of that regime.
If the regime increases the costs of development beyond the point at which companies are willing to invest, then the parcels will lay fallow. Alternately, if the regime is one thing but the provincial government reserves the right to add costs, then the parcels may sit fallow because the financial environment is too uncertain in comparison to other places. Exploration investment in those cases will go elsewhere.
Companies may still take up the parcels. As noted in the earlier post, they may decide that the potential resources in the parcel would justify the risk and whatever royalty and benefits regime the province imposes. Companies may also decide that no matter what the royalty regime occurs, the long lead times involved - nine years to complete exploration and whatever time after that to develop any significant discovery found - may well give further opportunity to change the provincial royalty regime.
Look ahead to 2020. The existing offshore oil fields will be drawing down. The provincial government will be faxing increased costs owing to the impact of demographics. In the absence of any significant new offshore development, the financial pressures on a provincial government a decade and more hence may well cause that future government to amend whatever royalty regime is announced this year.
Exploration indeed must precede development. But, if we look at the issues potentially affecting private sector interest in the fields, it is much too early to determine whether we will even get to exploration in the first place.
The other possible interest in those fields, as noted in the earlier post, may be from the province's new energy corporation. That's the second possible reason for the long time bids will be open. As we learned last week, the province's new energy corporation will be running by early in the New Year. Exploration costs are well within the financial means of the energy corporation and the long lead time on this bid process would allow the new energy corporation seven months to sort out any interest it has in acquiring exploration rights.
Once again, though, there are simply too many unknowns to project with any accuracy what will happen with those parcels. We may have a better idea the closer we get to August and of course we will know with certainty on August 2.
In any event, and as much as we might wish it were otherwise, it is far too soon to be discussing the return of oil and gas exploration to the Labrador shelf. It is tempting to be optimistic - particularly in the wake of Hebron and Hibernia South - but experience with the local offshore over 25 years ( and including those two spectacular setbacks) should give us all an abundance of prudence and caution when it comes to projecting what will occur.
-srbp-
Your drain on bugs
For the third time in the past four weeks police have uncovered marijuana grow-ops and their associated production labs.
The second one turned up because it exploded.
The latest was discovered by police attended at the scene of a domestic disturbance.
If it wasn't so serious an issue, it would be comical.
The second one turned up because it exploded.
The latest was discovered by police attended at the scene of a domestic disturbance.
If it wasn't so serious an issue, it would be comical.
-srbp-
Quote of the week: Loyola Hearn
At the tail end of an interview with The Independent:
"I will not get down into the gutter, but it is getting to the point where if people push too far, they can expect a slash," he says. "I get sick and tired sometimes of listening to people who are doing a lot of damage to our province by inactivity, by constantly blaming others for what's not happening, who are doing nothing themselves except ridiculing and burning bridges.
The people in our province better wise up. We have tremendous opportunities, the best people in the world, we have greater resources, and we are letting some people, for personal reasons, try to build a little kingdom in our province."
-srbp-
02 June 2007
Premiers push back on senate reform
Ontario and Quebec are entering the debate on senate reform, saying the Prime Minister must obtain the consent of the provinces to reform the institution.
Canadian Press' Joan Bryden discusses the issue in French, in an article carried in la presse on Friday. Quebec - referred to by Bryden as one of the two most important provinces in Canada - wants the federal senate reform measures halted:
Canadian Press' Joan Bryden discusses the issue in French, in an article carried in la presse on Friday. Quebec - referred to by Bryden as one of the two most important provinces in Canada - wants the federal senate reform measures halted:
"Le gouvernement du Québec ne s'oppose pas à une modernisation du Sénat", a écrit la province dans un mémoire soumis au Comité permanent des affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles du Sénat.It appears that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has taken a similar position. In a May 9 session of the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs, senators make references to a letter or letters received by the committee from Premier Danny Williams:
"Mais si nous cherchons à modifier les caractéristiques essentielles de cette institution, la seule avenue possible est de lancer un processus constitutionnel coordonné au niveau fédéral-provincial qui réunit les joueurs constitutionnels, incluant le Québec", a-t-elle ajouté.
Senator Milne: We will send a letter to the premiers of the provinces inviting their input on this matter, giving them a cut-off date so we can receive the reply before May 31. In a package along with this letter with suggested wording, we will send along copies of Premier Graham's letter and the legal opinion. We received letters from Premier Danny Williams, and the testimony of four different provinces and the report of the special committee. They have all the information with a request to reply before May 31.
...
Senator Hays: For the rest, Premier Williams wrote saying he was not going to appear, that anything involving the Senate should involve the provinces. It was not an opinion; it was just a letter saying that....
...
Senator Bryden: Premier Williams was pretty clear in his letter. He made a statement that nothing that would affect provinces should be determined without the provinces' participation. He went on, in either that letter or another, to say do not forget that the Council of the Federation has passed a resolution "... that no changes would be made in federal assets, including the Senate, without the agreement of the provinces."
...
-srbp-
NL behind NS in space race
With 120 hectares of Crown land to build on, an American company has put Nova Scotia decisively ahead of Newfoundland and Labrador in the race for space.
When will people be organizing protests about this great slight to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
This sort of venture could have put Newfoundland and Labrador on the leading edge of the 21st century's great challenge.
Surely, this is proof that Confederation was a giant conspiracy to oppress the poor, downtrodden people of a poor downtrodden land.
Nova Scotians are already looking down their noses at us as they take away some of the greatest assets of the province in an unprecedented give-away of our resources. Next thing, they'll be looking down on us from outer space.
And while we are at, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should be lobbying for federal funding to build a museum to this affront to intelligence.
When will people be organizing protests about this great slight to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
This sort of venture could have put Newfoundland and Labrador on the leading edge of the 21st century's great challenge.
Surely, this is proof that Confederation was a giant conspiracy to oppress the poor, downtrodden people of a poor downtrodden land.
Nova Scotians are already looking down their noses at us as they take away some of the greatest assets of the province in an unprecedented give-away of our resources. Next thing, they'll be looking down on us from outer space.
And while we are at, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should be lobbying for federal funding to build a museum to this affront to intelligence.
-srbp-
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)