Is Williams on a Cross Canada "Good Will Mission"?

The Hill Times is reporting that the national press gallery will be holding their annual dinner this Saturday evening. It should prove to be an intersting time.

Stephane Dion and Jack Layton will be there for the event but as of last report Stephen Harper was not planning to attend and apparently has "encouraged" his cabinet ministers and back benchers to avoid the dinner as well.

Could it be that Mr. Harper is a still afraid of the national media or could his abscence be attributed to avoiding one high profile guest we all know very well, Danny Williams?

It seems Williams has been busy getting his name and face out there in an all out effort to become a household name across Canada. First he appeard on two of Canada's most popular humorous programs, This Hour has 22 Minutes and the Rick Mercer Report, now he plans to rub elbows with reporters and editors from all of Canada's major news services.

According to the report in the Hill Times,

"...the Premier–maybe that should be Emperor?–of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams (will attend). The evening promises to be anything but dull. Meanwhile, I am told that despite reports that Cabinet ministers and Conservative backbenchers have been "encouraged" by the PMO not to attend, several will be there. So it just might turn out to be a very interesting evening after all."

Indeed it should and who knows, with the Premier planning to go head to head with Stephen Harper during the next federal election, building up a friendly and ougoing image across Canada might be very helpful. Especially since polls show most Canadians still don't trust the PM and find him "Cold", "Distant", "Calculating" and any number of other adjectives anyone might want to heap on the pile.

Fledgling Federal Party Steps Into Ottawa - NL Dispute

There has been a new turn of events in the ongoing dispute between Newfoundland and Labrador and Ottawa.

This week the leader of the fledgling Newfoundland and Labrador First Party, Tom Hickey, informed the media that his party intends to field a full slate of candidates in the province when the writ is dropped for the next federal election. Hickey also indicated that he is hoping Premier Danny Williams will throw his support behind those candidates if the Premier is serious about shutting out the federal Conservatives in the Province.

It’s an interesting idea and clearly some pretty solid planning has gone into this move by the new party. If the Premier is serious about campaigning against the Harper government he might want to consider the offer extended to him by Mr. Hickey.

Ever since the Harper government backed out of its promise on non-renewable resources and unilaterally changed the Atlantic Accord contract, Williams has been telling everyone in the Province to vote ABC “Anybody but Conservative”. The slogan may be catchy but how valid is the ABC campaign? Where does it leave the voters?

The outcome of the recent provincial election proved beyond doubt that the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are firmly behind the Premier in his battle with Ottawa and in the direction his government is taking locally. The overwhelming percentage of the popular vote Williams received speaks volumes about his ability to “encourage” the people to take a stand and to follow his lead. Now a Newfoundland and Labrador centric party is challenging the Premier to step up to the plate and use that popularity to help send 7 independent voices to Ottawa for the first time in the Province's history.

For Liberal, NDP or Green party supporters William's "ABC" campaign does’nt present much of a problem, they can simply continue to support the party of their choice in the next election, but what about anyone who would have traditionally voted Conservative? How many of them will feel comfortable casting a vote for one of the other parties? How many will be willing to do that and how many long time voters will be satisfied to simply stay at home?

What about the average person who is not a traditional conservative supporter but who feels, for whatever reason, that this time around neither of the other options available is a valid one for them? Where should they park their vote?

The NL First party is hoping to fill the void left in the wake of the Premier’s battle with the fed and are asking him to support their efforts.

The party is lead by a former, and well respected, provincial MHA and cabinet minister who represented the PC party for several years. The party itself espouses many of the same ideals and principles as the Williams government does and the party appears eager to take on the task of tackling a federal campaign.

For disenfranchised Conservative voters, or even the common Joe with no party affiliation, the NL First party might be the answer to their current dilemma, and to the Premier's. If Williams hopes to make his anti-Harper campaign a succesful one he may have found a way.

I’m not out to promote the NL First or any other party, but under the present circumstance NL First may indeed present an option in the next federal election if they do indeed field a slate of candidates answerable only to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and can gain the Premier's support.

NL First is saying, as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians believe, that the seven federal MPs the province traditionally sends to Ottawa have never had a strong voice. This they say is because those MPs are part of a large national party answerable to the majority of voters in just about every other province except their own. In other words, national parties, no matter the stripe, will respond to the wishes of the majority in vote rich provinces like Ontario and Quebec, even if those wishes are in direct opposition to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s hard to deny the truth in that.

The NL First party has positioned itself, not as a Bloc style separatist movement, but as an independent voice for their Province.

Mr. Hickey recently noted that his party has no intention of being obstructionist if elected. They intend to support or fight each piece of federal legislation on its own merits but always with an eye to how it might harm or benefit Newfoundland and Labrador.

Canada has reached a point in its history where minority governments are likely the norm rather than the exception. With the Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc and Green parties all vying for voter support, and with the latter two parties becoming increasingly popular all the time, the odds of winning a majority government are not what they once were.

The thinking behind hte NL First party is that by electing candidates who are not answerable to anyone outside the province, especially at a time when minority governments are likely, Newfoundland and Labrador will have a better chance of getting its message out, its needs met and perhaps, in the case of a close minority, even holding the balance of power when it comes to voting on key pieces of legislation.

As far as Premier Williams is concerned, he might want to give the NL First a good long look. This new party could provide him with the solution he needs if he hopes to address the concerns of anyone looking for a place to park their vote.

It’s often difficult for voters to stand behind a negative election campaign. If Williams chooses to do so, supporting the NL First party would allow the him to seamlessly and easily move from a negative, “Anybody but…” campaign to a much more positive and constructive one that supports a locally focused party and candidates.

Will Williams get onboard? Only time will tell, but it’s definitely a new twist in the battle between Williams and Harper and one well worth keeping an eye on.

Harper's Big Election Gamble

With Wednesday’s announcement of a compromise deal over the Atlantic Accord, Stephen Harper sent another clear signal he plans to force an election in the coming weeks. The question is whether the gamble to shore up support in Atlantic Canada will actually help him or cost him in the long run.

Although the deal will provide additional funds to the province, the amount will be far less than Nova Scotia had been fighting for. The move could, and likely will, be seen as an attempt by Harper to buy off the province before an election and to shore up a weak Conservative governemnt in that province.

Some analysts believe Harper wants to continue to govern but based on recent events it’s far more likely that, even with less than perfect polling numbers, the PM sees the time as ripe to make his move and force an election.

All sorts of scenarios are being tossed around by strategists and party insiders. Anything and everything that could possibly help or hinder the party’s election chances are being examined. Correction, almost everything. Clearly something has been overlooked in Harper's quest for glory.

What has not been considered is a factor outside the control of Stephen Harper and his party. An intangible that has the potential to do some serious damage to the Conservatives in light of recent events, and one that has once again moved to the forefront with Wednesday’s announcement.

That uncontrollable and indefinable factor is none other than the outspoken Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams.

It may sound a little odd that the Premier of one of Canada’s smallest and poorest provinces, one with only 7 federal seats, might somehow be able to throw a monkey wrench into the PM’s chances for re-election, but odd or not, the possibility exists and Stephen Harper is not giving that possiblity the attention it deserves. It's an oversight that could prove far more expensive than he knows.

Williams has already verbally attacked the PM over back peddling on equalization promises and for making unilateral changes to the bi-lateral Atlantic Accord agreement. At the time of those changes Williams complaints were easily brushed aside as those of a premier with limited political experience but my how times have changed.

Today the Premier is viewed in many parts of Canada as a bit of a giant killer, a leader who isn’t afraid to fight with anyone standing in the way of his province’s future. Simply put, he's a street fighter that Stephen Harper has just poked with a very big stick.

Williams has already told the people of Canada that the PM can’t be trusted to keep his word. He warned them that by breaking a written promise to Newfoundland and Labrador Harper proved he was not above doing the same thing to them. Now, with the Nova Scotia agreement in place, Harper has done just that.

The PM would have been better off if he had simply done an about face, for whatever "technical" reason, and honored the Atlantic Accord. At least then he could have claimed he was bound by a contract signed by the preceding Liberal government and that his hands were tied. Instead he has opted to do something he told the Country he would never do.

Whether you support the fight over equalization or not, yesterday’s agreement, with Nova Scotia, is clearly a new side deal for that province. When Harper brought down the equalization formula in March, the one that got him into this mess in the first place, he told the Canadian people there would be, “No more side deals”.

All Williams has to do now is lock and load for an attack that will surely resonate with Canadian voters. On Wednesday Stephen Harper provided the ammunition he needed and he also gained the scrappy Premier an even more emboldened ally in the form of the normally reserved Saskatchewan Premier, Lorne Calvert.

The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is often accused of picking fights for the sake of fighting but that’s a misperception that has come back to haunt several of his opponents. In reality he more often picks fights he feels he should, and can, win. Stephen Harper is aligned squarely in his crosshairs and Williams' finger is poised on the trigger.

Since first elected Williams took on former PM Paul Martin over the very same Atlantic Accord contract. He won.

He fought big oil over an improved royalty regime and a provincial equity position. Big oil closed up shop and moved away. A year and a half later they quietly returned and agreed to an enhanced royalty regime and the very equity position he wanted. He won.

Williams, while in his first term, took a hard line by legislating over 40,000 public sector employees back to work, laid off highway staff after shutting down a number of depots, sent the provincial oil industry association into hysterics by walking away from Hebron development talks and completely alienated two federal governments. This week he sought re-election from just over 300,000 voters, most of which were impacted in some way by his previous actions. He won in a landslide vicory with the largest percentage of popular vote in the province’s history.

Williams is now much more widely recognized across Canada than he was even a few short months ago. His exploits have led to a re-evaluation of oil royalties by the Alberta government. He has emboldened provinces like Saskatchewan - which is now tackling the federal government in court and threatening to campaign against Harper- and his fighting persona has even led some in Nova Scotia to jokingly muse about him leading their province as well.

When he walked out on meetings with Paul Martin and he proved he doesn’t pull his punches.

When he waved goodbye to oil companies, as they packed up and left the province over stalled negotiations, he proved he doesn’t pull his punches.

When he went on a media tour and took out full page ads across the Country criticizing Stephen Harper he proved he doesn’t pull his punches.

When he told the electorate in Newfoundland and Labrador to vote “ABC” (Anyone but Conservative) during the next federal election he proved he doesn’t pull his punches.

And when he won his second mandate on the day before Harper's Accord announcement, with a majority that even the first Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and late father of Confederation, Joey Smallwood, would have been envious of, Williams greeted the crowds by saying,

"There's a message here, Steve. If you want to take me and my team on, you have to take on all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador."

Once again, he proved he doesn’t pull his punches.

Any federal election will naturally center on the issues and personalities directly involved but who really knows what kind of chaos one very determined premier can create when he puts his mind to it.

It’s one thing to force an election when you’re sporting minority level numbers but are in control of the agenda. It’s a completely different game when you're faced with an unknown and volotile variable like the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Unfortunately for the PM he has no control over which issues the public ultimately decide to latch onto, especially when a wild card like Williams is waiting in the wings stockpiling his ammunition and patiently preparing to fire.

I don’t know about Stephen Harper, but if I were planning to go to the polls any time soon I’d sure as hell be looking for some way to neutralize the Williams factor first.

Editor's Note: As an aside, Both Harper and MacDonald claim this deal was in the works for months (and not just a quickly engineered election ploy) there may be some evidence to the contrary.

The announcement of this deal (also offered to Newfoundland and Labrador) was made on October 10th, but as late as October 5th someone at the department of finance in Ottawa was spending a little time investigating the numbers involved. Check out the following link to another article on my site a few days ago:

http://freenewfoundlandlabrador.blogspot.com/2007/10/atlantic-accord-revisited.html

The Politics of Desperation

Newfoundland and Labrador will be heading to the polls in a provincial election early next month. Soon candidates will be hitting the election trail in full force. Over the next week or so campaign signs will begin to deface the landscape once again and election promises will start flying around faster than a hummingbird on steroids. For the most part the process will play itself out as these things always do, but there is one marked difference this time around.

With the latest opinion polls showing what appears to be a one horse race, and with the two mainstream provincial opposition parties struggling on life support, a new tactic has become all the rage with those who see their political futures slipping further away with each passing day.

The provincial PC party, or as they would prefer to be called, the “Danny Williams Team”, currently stands at about 75% - 80% support in the province and are expected to win by a landslide. Whether those numbers actually hold up going into the election remains to be seen but they have prompted some party faithful, those not on the “Danny Williams Team”, to an act of utter desperation.

Some are suggesting that the 80% of voters who currently support the PC party should consider using their vote strategically rather than casting it for the party of their choice.

It’s a new wrinkle in what appears to be an increasingly undemocratic society, a concept that’s being talked about a lot lately and one that speaks volumes about the desperation of those promoting the idea.

Essentially the proponents would like supporter of the reigning PC party to vote for a Liberal or NDP candidate instead. They say strategic voting will ensure a strong opposition, help hold the government to account and protect our democratic system.

Excuse me while I vent, but the entire concept is ludicrous. It reeks of fear and desperation. Cleary the idea is nothing more then a last ditch attempt by dying and unbalanced political hopefuls who hope to hang on by their well manicured fingernails.

There is no doubt that there’s something to be said for a strong opposition. As someone once said, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. In Newfoundland and Labrador those words ring far truer than in most places. Many voters are old enough to recall Joey Smallwood and the fallout of his unchallenged power, but the existence of a strong opposition is something that has to happen in a natural way, not through a forced agenda.

The onus for getting elected lies with the members of the various parties, not with the voters. It’s the parties that must present strong candidates and solid platforms. It is the candidates themselves who need to give voters sound reasons to trust them, to want them in office and to elect them. If they can't do that then they deserve to lose.

Instead of the parties stepping up to the challenge of providing a real alternative to the voting public, those voters are being asked to cast their ballots against their choice in the name of protecting democracy.

It’s a concept that is the complete antithesis of what democracy is all about and the proponents of this approach should hang their heads in shame.

By asking this of the public they are actually asking them to give away their ability to vote for their candidate or party of choice.

Why should I or anyone else vote for a candidate or a party I don’t support? What possible reason could I have to even consider such a thing? It’s almost too foolish to talk about. Consider what might happen if everyone suddenly had a massive attack of the stupids and actually acted on this. The end result might see the public elect a government nobody wanted. Now there's a cold reality check for you.

The very foundation of a democracy is the right of each individual to vote for the candidate of their choice. The system is not meant to be corrupted by having voters support a candidate or party they do not want to form government.

I have no way of knowing if my preferred candidate will win a seat this October or not, but win or lose, I'll execise my franchise in the way it was intended. I certainly don't intend to cast my vote for someone who is looking for a free pass instead of providing me with a solid choice that would warrant my support.

Is Newfoundland and Labrador Being Sold Down The River on Lower Churchill?

CBC News is reporting today that they’ve uncovered a report, completed in 2005, at the request of the provincial government. The document states that while Newfoundland and Labrador has massive wind energy potential it does not have the capacity in its electrical infrastructure (grid) to handle that potential.

According to CBC, the government report says the grid will limit the size of potential projects despite having a “world-class wind resource”
.
While the inability of the provincial grid to handle large scale wind power presents a serious problem it also points to an even bigger issue for Newfoundland and Labrador, both developmentally and politically.

Since taking office Premier Danny Williams and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro CEO, Ed Martin, have been adament that they are seriously considering bypassing Quebec and using a maritime route to bring lower Churchill power to markets in Canada and the U.S. The question now becomes whether they are actually considering this option or if they’ve been misleading the public with politically motivated blather for months?

Everyone in the province knows that a maritime route will require the laying of an undersea cable from Labrador to the island of Newfoundland. The power would then need to travel down the Northern Peninsula and to another cable from the island to New Brunswick. While the public expected that additional costs would be associated with the undersea links, there now appears to be a major roadblock with transporting the power across the island itself.

If the existing grid can’t handle an additional few hundred megawatts of wind power what are the odds it can handle more than 2000 megawatts from the Lower Churchill?

Of course the public will have to wait for the release of the provincial energy plan, expected sometime this month, to find out if the province has plans to upgrade the provincial grid, but for now it looks like talk of a maritime route has been nothing more than rhetoric and politics at play.

I’ve always been a proponent of using as much lower Churchill power as possible inside the province, especially as a means to facilitate industrial expansion in Labrador. If the power can’t be used locally then at the very least our province needs to ensure that a repeat of the ransom demands Quebec presented on the upper Churchill are not repeated.

With the contents of this 2005 report now in the public domain, and with no major industrial giants lined up by the Williams government to use the power at home, it would seem the only options left are to once again go through Quebec, on its terms, or forget the project all together.

If that’s the case, I’ll take the latter option thank-you very much. I suspect most of the voters in the province will make the same choice.

Williams Extends Olive Branch to Harper

The Question of who is the bigger person in the ongoing equalization battle, between Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador, has finally been answered. Here's a hint. He doesn't live on Sussex Drive.

With the tabling of the March budget the Conservative government saw three provincial premiers accuse the PM of walking away from his election promises on equalization and doing an end run around signed Atlantic Accord agreements.

The budget sparked off a war of words between the leaders and none were louder than Newfoundland and Labrador Premier, Danny Williams. Even today there appears to be very little communication between St. John’s and Ottawa, at least at the highest levels.

There are those who believe Harper did the right thing for Canada and that Premiers Williams, MacDonald and Calvert are looking for too much. Others, mainly in the provinces affected, honestly believe the Prime Minister turned his back on them for purely political reasons by favoring the wishes of vote rich Ontario and Quebec and circumvented a legally binding contract.

No matter which side of the debate they support many observers have been wondering if or when someone will make the first move to re-open the lines of communication and find a way forward on an issue that has divided a Country. They have been wondering which one of these political leaders is the bigger man and which one will finally extend an olive branch.

With summer vacations in full swing some of you may have missed it but over the past several days that question has been answered on more than one occasion.

Recently Premier Danny Williams has not only extended an olive branch to Stephen Harper he’s essentially extended the entire tree. The problem now is that the Prime Minister doesn’t seem willing to accept these offerings. Instead his strategy for resolving the problem amounts to simply ignoring the people of Atlantic Canada and Saskatchewan.

The first move by Premier Williams came on the morning of the big Hebron oil project announcement in the province. Even after Stephen Harper had slighted the provincial leader by sneaking into and then out of the province, in the wake of major floods in the area a few weeks earlier, Williams decided to do something the Prime Minister refused to do. He made a courtesy call to the PM’s office.

Prior to making a public announcement of the multi-billion dollar oil deal Williams phoned the Prime Ministers office as a courtesy. According to the Premier, his intent was to inform the PM of what was about to take place. A reasonable thing to do considering that the project has the potential to pump billions of dollars directly into federal coffers and since Ottawa and the province both manage the resource jointly.

Harper did not take the Premier’s call. Instead one of his staff informed Williams that the PM was busy and would try to call him back. To date, no reports of any direct communication between the two have surfaced.

The second peace offering took place later the same day during an interview on CTV News.

When asked about the ongoing feud Williams indicated that he was standing by his position on the issue but that he could not understand why the PM has never offered to sit down and talk about what options might exist to satisfy both sides in the disagreement.

Clearly this was an attempt by Williams to open up communications and perhaps find some sort of resolution. Just a few months ago this was not something Williams was willing to consider and at that time Harper simply denied any wrong doing and even challenged the provinces to take him to court if they wanted. Now that things have quieted down Williams appears willing to talk even if Harper isn't.

Once again, no movement has been reported from the PMO’s office.

A third, and perhaps most telling sign that Williams is willing to discuss the impasse, happened during the recent Liberal caucus meetings in the province.

On arriving in St. John's Liberal leader Stephane Dion made a point of visiting the Premier’s office and spending some time meeting with him. The Liberal leader clearly intended to use the visit as a photo op in an attempt to brand himself as a supporter of Atlantic Canada’s interests and an alternative to Harper’s apparently anti-Atlantic mindset. Unfortunately for Mr. Dion, Premier Williams refused to go before the cameras with him or even discuss the visit publicly. He essentially left Mr. Dion to his own devices and in doing so left the door open to Stephen Harper.

It's clear that Williams is, after many months, willing to work with Ottawa to fix a situation that has divided the Country and impacted Atlantic Canada’s financial future.

These recent gestures by Williams are obviously intended to let the Prime Minister know that there is still time to find a solution before the next federal election. Still time before the voters in Atlantic Canada go to the polls with the slogan, “ABC – Anyone but Conservatives” ringing in their ears. And, perhaps more importantly for Stephen Harper, still time to win back some limited level of support in the region. Something he may very well need to secure a majority win.

It seems that instead of reaching out to accept these peace offerings Harper has chosen to do something he often does when faced with someone who refuses to follow his commands or challenges him on an issue. He has gone into hiding, is refusing to talk and is taking an adversarial and potentially aggressive stand against his perceived enemy.

This is the sort of tactic often employed by an angry, frustrated and spoiled five year old but it isn't one that should ever be used by a sitting Prime Minister.

A Closer Look at Reid's Questions on Hebron

What follows are a number of questions presented in a letter from the provincial opposition leader to Premier Danny Williams. It seems that after much internal discussion and planning the Liberal party has finally come up with an official list of questions surrounding the Hebron memorandum of understanding (MOU).

It’s unfortunate for the Liberal party that in taking so long to put their list of queries together most of the questions have already been asked by the media, pundits and analysts but at least these questions are now being asked in a quasi-official manner, even it some of them are clearly intended to score political points rather than inform the public.

Personally, I’m impressed with the fact that the Premier has moved the Hebron project forward, but with that said, there are indeed questions that should be answered.

I suspect some of those questions, as presented in the following letter, cannot really be answered at this point in time. They will likely have to wait until the final agreement is ironed out. Others asked by the Liberal leader are purely political in nature. There are few however that can and should be answered to the satisfaction of the public.

Here are the questions asked by the Liberal leader (with a few of my personal comments added for good measure of course.)

1. Why is your government refusing to release the MOU?

Patriot Comments: Purely a political question intended to score points. A response on why the MOU is not being released would not answer whether or not the MOU is a good one. It would simply add ammunition to the Liberal election machine. Not a good start Gerry.

2. Why did you agree to freeze the royalty rate paid by the oil companies at one percent until payout?

Patriot Comments: An answer to this question would be nice but I think everyone has already settled on what the answer is, everyone except Mr. Reid of course.

Essentially one of the big stumbling blocks to the negotiations was the equity stake the province wanted. Since one or more of the partners had to give up 4.9% of their equity in order for the province to get a share. It’s likely this step was taken to offset investor concern and help mitigate the risk by ensuring a faster return on investment. I’m not sure if I agree with the approach or not but that’s most likely the reason. I don’t see any big mystery there.

3. How much money has been left on the table by compromising on the royalty regime and allowing a one percent payment until payout?

- If the generic royalty regime with an increasing royalty rate from 1% to 7.5% until payout is applied, similar to White Rose, hundreds of millions of extra dollars will flow into the provinces coffers in the early years of production. What impact will your compromise have on the amount of money that could have flowed into provincial coffers in the first ten years of production?

Patriot Comments: This is not only a bit of a loaded question, it’s a fully loaded one.

I agree that we should all be made aware of the expected difference between what provincial revenues would be under the old regime and under the new one but that’s not what Gerry asked.

He began the question by pre-supposing that we would lose money. Notice the phrasing, “How much money has been left on the table”.

He then asks the difference to provincial coffers in the first ten years. That number could be very misleading to the public rather than serving to clarify the real numbers or the government’s position.

Clearly revenues will be less in the first few years, during the payback period. 1% has to bring in less revenue than 7.5% but that doesn’t necessarily mean that over the life of the project the province won’t actually come out ahead. The enhanced royalties at the end have the potential to recoup that money or even provide additional revenues. It’s all dependent on the price of oil.

By loading the question the way he did it’s clear what is motivating Mr. Reid here and it isn’t a quest for the truth.

4. What will the province lose in royalties if the price of oil, after payout has been reached, is less than $50 a barrel?

- There has been much discussion regarding the Upper Churchill contract and the exclusion of an escalator clause. If only people knew when that agreement was signed that the price of electricity would jump so dramatically during the 1970s; however, analysts did not predict such an increase in the price of electricity and the province has lost significant revenues ever since.

Your Hebron MOU proposes a super royalty regime that kicks in once oil reaches $50 a barrel. However, should oil decline below $50 a barrel, the companies do not have to pay this royalty.

The province has stated that to achieve this super royalty, sacrifices had to be made on the generic royalty and hence a one percent frozen royalty payment until payout. What safeguards have been built into this MOU to protect the people of the province should oil prices drop?

Patriot Comments: Finally, a valid question, it looks good on you Gerry.

Industry analysts predict that the days of cheap oil are over and reserves around the world are shrinking. They also predict that the reduction in supply will drive prices higher not lower. That being said, anything can happen.

Prices could drop before the enhanced Royalties kick in.

Over the next decade or so peace could be declared in oil rich nations, dictators may change their minds about big oil, new discoveries under the melting ice caps of the north could increase supply or the worlds newly discovered interest in “green” technology may cut the demand for oil. With these factors at play there is some risk to waiting until the tail end of the project for enhanced payments.

Perhaps the real question should be: How much of the expected $16 billion actually falls into that risk area?

5. When will the project reach payout?

- With so much of the royalty revenue dependent upon when this project reaches payout, what time frames has your government used in its calculations? We all know that this is somewhat dependent on the cost of developing the project and the price of oil, but could you provide a breakdown on the criteria government has used in making this projection?

Patriot Comments: Two good questions in a row. If you keep this up you might win me over yet.

Although this may not be the most important point to be addressed, in my opinion, it’s likely one that’s at the front of most people’s minds and one that deserves an answer. Who wouldn’t want to know when the royalties will be flowing in?

6. How much will government have to invest in up-front costs related to the 4.9 percent equity position?

-Government announced an investment of $110 million to purchase the equity stake and an unknown amount in go-forward development costs. Some have pegged this cost at as much as $300 to $500 million for construction and development related costs, bringing the potential total cost to upwards of $600 million. Can you provide the actual figure and the analysis that government has completed to get its figure?

Patriot Comments: Sorry Gerry but you almost had me with the two previous questions. Now you’re losing me again.

The project was initially pegged at between 5 and 6 billion dollars. It’s easy for anyone to figure out what 4.9% of that amount is. As for any further estimates of cost, they would be highly speculative right now.

Now that the project is back on track the Hebron partners have made it known that they are re-evaluating the cost model, until that is done not even the developers can put a precise number on the project.

Everyone knows the province will have to contribute 4.9% of the cost. Providing you, as the leader of the opposition with numbers like 200 million or 400 million, that would essentially have to be pulled out of thin air, only serves to provide you with a political football to kick around.

Until the new cost estimates are in place you know as much as anyone.

I’ll tell you what, why not just do what everyone else is doing. Multiply $5 billion by 4.9% and then double the result. Somewhere in there you’ll likely come across the number you’re looking for.

7. How long will it take for government to recover its up-front investment?

- An estimated $600 million is a lot of money to put forward in up-front costs without any immediate return on investment. How long will it take to recover this investment before any real money flows into the provinces coffers?

Patriot Comments: This is a sad and repetitive question. In question 5 you already asked when the payout of costs is expected to happen. Clearly, as a partner in the project, the province will recover its investment costs at the same time the other partners will. An answer to question 5 will answer this as well. There is really no need to even ask this question.

8. What risks has the province been exposed to related to liabilities such as environmental clean-ups or cost overruns because of the equity position?

- The province has a 4.9 percent equity stake in this project and will be responsible for 4.9 percent of the overall costs. This would include 4.9 percent of any cost overruns or 4.9 percent of any liabilities, such as an environmental clean-up if there was an oil spill. Has government included any of these factors in deciding the profitability of an equity stake, or is this a decision that accepts risk and hopes that nothing goes wrong over the life of the project?

Patriot Comments: Once again Gerry another sad question.

I think it’s clear to everyone by now that by owning 4.9% of the project the province shoulders 4.9% of the cost and risks.

Nobody has tried to hide that fact.

The reality with any project is that the developers work to limit risk as much as possible. With that done, if something happens you deal with it.

Should the province have taken on that risk? That’s more of a political question than one about the MOU itself and I believe in your subtle way the point you’re trying to make here is that it shouldn’t have. Clearly you are not trying to ask a legitimate question.

On a brighter note (not that an environmental incident could really have a bright side) but even if some sort of environmental disaster cost $100 million dollars to clean up, and those are very rare indeed, the province would only be on the hook for 4.9% of that, or less than 5 million dollars.

Considering that some analysts expect the cost of production to be around $3.90 per barrel and the market is currently in the $70 range there is wiggle room to be had.

9. Apart from the GBS (which is captive to this province and will be built at Bull Arm),what percentage of other fabrication work will be completed in this province?

- At your press conference, you refused to put a figure on how much work will be completed in Newfoundland and Labrador. During White Rose, government stated up front that over 80 percent of the total work would be completed in this province. At the end of the project, over 85 percent of work that could be completed in this province was completed in Newfoundland and Labrador. Can you provide a concrete figure on the work percentage for Hebron, the breakdown of the calculation, and if not, why not?

Patriot Comments: You’re winning me back again Gerry. Not a bad question.

We should find out how much work will take place here, if our yards and local companies have the infrastructure, capabilities and manpower to step up to that work we should know if it will be done here, although it may still be far too early for “concrete figures”.

10. How much of the FEED (front-end engineering and design) and other detailed engineering work will be completed in this province?

- In the past, we have heard vocal critics such as Mayor Andy Wells state that no FEED or other engineering work should be done outside the province. This announcement certainly hints that a significant majority of engineering work will be completed outside Newfoundland and Labrador. Can you please provide the percentage of FEED work that will be completed here; provide a breakdown of how this calculation was done; and why we are allowing a significant portion of this work to be done elsewhere?

Patriot Comments: Oh Gerry, you sneaky little so and so.

Once again you’ve presented a loaded question that draws conclusions and then builds on them.

Your question is based on what you call “hints” in the MOU announcement. You then use those “hints” as fact and make the leap of asking why a “significant portion of the work” will be done elsewhere.

I agree that if the work can be done here at a reasonable price then it should be. I, like most people, would like to know how much of it will actually be done here, but you have presented the question in a way that pre-supposes, based on “hints” that a significant portion won’t be.

Be careful Gerry, your political agenda is starting to poke through again.

11. How large will the Gravity Based Structure (GBS) be in comparison to Hibernia?

- We have spoken with some industry analysts who state that the GBS to be completed for this project at Bull Arm will be one third the size of that for Hibernia. Is this true, and if so, will only one third of the workforce be required? Can you provide an analysis that shows the true size and work requirement to build this GBS? How many work hours will be required and what will be the peak years?

Patriot Comments: Not a bad question, I’ll give you 75% on that one Gerry.

The question about work levels needs to be answered but I'd bet it's far too early to give precise numbers.

Where you fall down in your question (and I’ve heard you make similar comments to the effect in the media) is in your supposition that a GBS one third the size might only require on third of the workforce. That’s likely not true.

If it takes a woman nine months to have a baby does that mean nine women can have a baby in one month?

12. How much of the topsides work will be completed in this province and where?

- You stated at your press conference that more fabrication tonnage will be completed in this province than either the White Rose or Terra Nova projects. Both White Rose and Terra Nova were floating vessels, whereas Hebron-Ben Nevis requires a GBS. The weight of the concrete alone would satisfy this requirement, but certainly does not provide any work commitments for topsides fabrication.

- While the smaller GBS will be built at Bull Arm, there does not appear to be any commitment for all the topsides work to be completed in this province. You have already stated that the major process module will be built outside the province. Can you provide a breakdown of what percentage of the topsides work will be done in Newfoundland and Labrador and where? What is the estimated tonnage of the topsides? How many person hours of work will be required? What percentage will be within the province? What components?

Patriot Comments: Once again, some of these detailed questions may not be answerable at the moment but questioning whether the MOU calls for the topsides to be built here is a valid and very important question that should be answered.

It might well be too early in the process to identify exactly where in the province that would happen or the exact amount of work it would generate but I suspect I know why Gerry asked for specific locations. I’ll clarify that during my comments on the next question.

13. How much work will Marystown get?

- We know Bull Arm will get the GBS work, but there is no real commitment to topsides work anywhere. What percentage of work will be undertaken in Marystown? What percentage will be undertaken at other sites in the province, e.g. St. Johns Dockyard?

Patriot Comments: Again, I suspect information around precisely what work will go to what yards is not even available yet. I assume that determination of this sort of detail will require discussions with management at these facilities to determine if they have the capability to do specific work, if they have other obligations that would prevent them from taking part and how much they would charge. This latter point, the cost, is something that would require a detailed project plan and the preparation of estimates for a yard to even make a guess at.

I would think that a simple answer from government confirming that pieces of work X, Y and Z will be done in the province should be enough of a response to answer any concerns the public might have.

The only reason I can imagine that Gerry is looking to get information on specific yards and what they’ll be doing is if he hopes to sway voters in those areas that may not be slated for Hebron work at this point.

As a final note:

Gerry, I give you credit for at least getting a few solid questions out there but in the end your political biases have once again shone through. By the way, I know it’s silly, but why 13 questions? Couldn’t you have come up with at least one more? Better yet, you could have left the repetitive and politically motivated ones out altogether. Or was the decision to go with 13 a subtle attempt by you to wish some sort of bad luck on Williams, the MOU or the project itself? Naw, you can’t be that desperate can you?