• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

The Dictator in Venezuela vs. The Dictator in NFLD.

2canplay

TRIBE Member
On a day when Chavez kicked out Total and ElfEni for not signing onto new Venezuelan legistlation, Danny Williams threatens to "buy out" Exxon. Chavez' government has asked producers to give up majority control of their Venezuelan properties to the government (60%), raise royalties to 30% (from 1%) and and pay a tax on profits of 55%, upfrom 43% (or so). 17 companies signed on, 2 sold out (Exxon and Statoil) and 2 didn't do anything (Total and Elf).

I wonder if the WSJ is going to start calling Danny Williams the East Coast Strong Man??? Has Danny been to Cuba?

-------------------------------------------------------------
Plug pulled on Hebron offshore project
STEVEN CHASE AND DAVE EBNER

00:00 EDT Tuesday, April 04, 2006

OTTAWA AND CALGARY -- The Hebron offshore oil project was shelved yesterday after a breakdown in negotiations that has Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams blaming Exxon Mobil Corp. and vowing to buy out the global giant's stake in order to put things back on track.

The Premier said he has been led to believe that Exxon Mobil is the partner responsible for the decision to place the $5-billion Hebron project on hold.

"I am basically saying 'Use it or lose it.' And if they don't want to play ball here, then they should just move on," Mr. Williams said in an interview.

Newfoundland has been talking with the project's four partners, led by Chevron Corp. and including Exxon, Petro-Canada and Norsk Hydro ASA, for the past year, and one major issue that left the parties divided was Newfoundland's desire for an equity stake in the project, an idea introduced last fall.

The province wanted as much as 10 per cent but was willing to settle for around 5 per cent. The partners said the idea of equity was introduced late, calling it a "new card."

Mr. Williams has taken a more aggressive stance toward the oil industry, wanting the province to profit more during an era of near-record crude prices. The commodity price is a big reason one of Canada's poorest provinces is booking a budget surplus for the fiscal year 2005-06 and is projecting another for 2006-07.

"We considered the equity proposal at the highest levels of our respective organizations and we fundamentally could not agree on terms and that wasn't the only area of misalignment," said Mark MacLeod, a spokesman for Chevron, the second-largest oil company in the United States after Exxon.

The Hebron field was discovered in the early 1980s.

The field contains as much as 700 million barrels of oil, but Hebron's crude is heavy, meaning it is more difficult to process and sells for less than light oil, the type produced at Hibernia and the other two operating fields offshore Newfoundland. Hebron has been shelved once before, in early 2002, because of low oil prices.

Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon's Canadian subsidiary, said Mr. Williams didn't offer any precise indication that it was Exxon to blame.

"I note that he said he felt like we're the ones, as opposed to anything else," Mr. Jeffers said, adding it was Chevron's role as project operator to speak on behalf of the partners. "In terms of his [Mr. Williams'] comments, all I could say is we had agreed, along with the other joint venture partners, to suspend the evaluation. It was a unanimous decision."

Mr. MacLeod also said there was unanimity among the partners to suspend the work and disband the project team.

Mr. Williams said the province is willing to buy Exxon's 37.9-per-cent stake but declined to say how much it might cost. "We have every indication from Norsk Hydro, from Petro-Canada and from Chevron that they want do to this project. This is a lucrative project," he said.

He said he had thought talks were proceeding well until March 30 when the companies asked for tax credits and exemptions on fuel together totalling $400-million to $500-million, which the firms also had put on the table several months earlier. Mr. Williams called the tax credit request a "non-starter."

Mr. MacLeod said tax breaks were just one issue, though he didn't confirm the figure.

"We should focus on the big picture. There's no other project on the horizon. Hebron, had it proceeded, we would have surpassed the fiscal and industrial benefits of any project to date," Mr. MacLeod said, adding that the project would have generated as much as $10-billion in direct revenues for the Newfoundland government in royalties and corporate taxes over Hebron's life, about 20 to 25 years.

Chevron still plans to pursue work elsewhere off Newfoundland in the Orphan Basin, north of Hebron and the three producing offshore fields.

Mr. MacLeod said Chevron still wants to develop Hebron but a deal with Newfoundland is needed first and there is no indication when a breakthrough might now occur.

"It's not something we're ready to throw away or sell," he said.

Mr. Williams said Newfoundland had already tabled its final proposal. "The frustrating part of this is we can't be held hostage by Exxon Mobil," he said.

There was disappointment in Newfoundland.

"It's unfortunate for Newfoundland, because billions in investments were planned," said Paul Barnes, manager of the Atlantic Canada region for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. "All that is basically lost now."
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
I'm going to do more reading on this, but my first impression is that there's got to be better business partners than Exxon Mobil.

Danny Williams isn't stupid. He's brought NL a long way and to call him a *dictator* is a bit much.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
2canplay said:
On a day when Chavez kicked out Total and ElfEni for not signing onto new Venezuelan legistlation, Danny Williams threatens to "buy out" Exxon.
I don't understand why you think Williams is out of line here. The guy is trying to act in the best interest of the province and Exxon seems to be slowing down the process. He's being a shrewd business man who doesn't want to take shit... I don't really see a problem with having him apply a bit of pressure if it means getting things done. How often do you see politicians who push to get things done instead of delaying them for years on end?

(Although I'd prefer to see the business handed to someone other than Chevron and Exxon)
 

2canplay

TRIBE Member
Boss Hog said:
I don't understand why you think Williams is out of line here. The guy is trying to act in the best interest of the province and Exxon seems to be slowing down the process. He's being a shrewd business man who doesn't want to take shit... I don't really see a problem with having him apply a bit of pressure if it means getting things done. How often do you see politicians who push to get things done instead of delaying them for years on end?

(Although I'd prefer to see the business handed to someone other than Chevron and Exxon)
Dude, I'm being sarcastic.

I'm saying Danny-Boy is doing the same thing that Chavez is doing but the media doesn't say Boo about Danny (except that he is being a tough negotiator and standing up for his consituents), whereas Chavez and anyone else Not White, is labelled a strong man or a dictator or a socialist or a communist, or a populist, etc, etc, for doing the same damn thing.

Just pointing out the hypocracy.
;)
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
2canplay said:
Dude, I'm being sarcastic.

I'm saying Danny-Boy is doing the same thing that Chavez is doing but the media doesn't say Boo about Danny (except that he is being a tough negotiator and standing up for his consituents), whereas Chavez and anyone else Not White, is labelled a strong man or a dictator or a socialist or a communist, or a populist, etc, etc, for doing the same damn thing.

Just pointing out the hypocracy.
;)
Ahhh okay. My attention is fleeting these days, so thanks for making it painfully obvious for me and thus sacrificing the element of sarcasm.

doh

And now that I see the sarcasm, it is bright. :p
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
come on I don't sleep much and I just started a new job this week! Or last week. Or something.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
I think Danny Williams realizes the oil isn't going anywhere and will only become a more valuable asset as time goes forward. That being said, it's the ultimate trump card in this game. The oil barons want to believe they can engage the government how they used to, asking for ridiculous subsidies, and play the game on their terms. As the resources get scarcer, the stakes are raised and they should realize they can't go in with demands as they used to be able to. It would be of ultimate injustice if the terms established for development only reflected that of today's market conditions. This project should be established on grounds that would not just develop the project, but be of maximal benefit for the province throughout its entire development. I think Danny Williams' position is reflective of this idea.
 
Last edited:

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
I would like to see Williams downplay oil exports right now (but not altogether) and wait until 10-20 years from now when oil is ridiculously priced. Newfoundland would be sitting pretty nicely.

But he knows what he's at.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

2canplay

TRIBE Member
WSJ is out swining (again) today:
------------------------------------------------------------------

Terror's Apologist in Caracas

By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
April 7, 2006; Page A13

The scene was a Washington meeting of the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism, an agency of the Organization of American States. It was just days before the committee's March 24 Bogotá gathering, when it planned to issue a declaration on hemispheric cooperation to fight terrorism.

The room was filled with diplomats, working to hammer out the final text. But as it turned out, the meeting was anything but diplomatic. In fact, some who were present say things got downright ugly.

The source of the ugliness was Venezuela. It repeatedly insisted that references to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 -- which seeks to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- be stripped out of the Bogotá document. On three different occasions, one source told me, Venezuela stated its opposition to "non-proliferation" language.


This eventually provoked a heated exchange -- bordering on a shouting match, witnesses say -- when Colombia went mano-a-mano with its Andean neighbor, insisting that 1540 was essential. The rest of the room unanimously backed the Colombian stance. Venezuela was left to stew alone. (The Colombians present could not be reached for comment but others in attendance confirmed the confrontation.)

The American left is having a field day blaming anti-Americanism in Latin America on George W. Bush, the Iraq war and even the Cold War. But what has gone little noticed is the fear Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is engendering throughout the region. Latin governments are sobering up to the fact that if the Yanquis ever do go home, the vacuum left behind might well be filled by the Ugly Venezuelan. He currently is making news by grabbing foreign-owned oil fields and using his oil riches to buy fighter jets and thousands of AK-47s, which hardly suggests peaceful intentions. His close ties with dictators in Cuba, Iran and Syria are similarly disquieting.:rolleyes:

At the Bogotá meeting, the "Declaration of San Carlos on Hemispheric Cooperation for Comprehensive Action to Fight Terrorism" was supposed to be a standard multilateral communiqué, a tiny first step to show regional solidarity against terrorism. But Venezuela behaved like a skunk at a garden party. "They made no sense," one participant told me. "It seemed like they were just trying to derail the whole thing."

Perhaps, though, there was method in the madness. Take for example the document's recognition "that the activities of transnational organized crime can be used by terrorist groups to finance and facilitate their criminal activities."

All countries signed onto that statement except for Venezuela. It filed the following largely unintelligible footnote: "The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela cannot support the wording . . . which is geared toward pointing out a direct and permanent connection between terrorism and transnational organized crime, as that entails a repudiation of the norms of due process and the presumption of innocence -- universally recognized principles in the area of human rights."

The relevance of this high-minded objection to what was actually proposed was not evident to the other delegates. As one participant described it, the Venezuelans were "very disruptive, very unhelpful in acknowledging the links between organized crime and terrorism."

But perhaps the proposed joint statement struck a nerve. A Venezuelan congressman close to the Chávez machine, Luis Velásquez Alvaray, has been accused in a massive corruption scandal and, according to the Economist magazine, has "retorted that drug traffickers are running Venezuelan military intelligence" and that Interior Minister Jesse Chacon "is a pawn of organized crime." Whatever truth might underlay all this intramural name-calling is hard to fathom, but it hints at why the Chávez regime might be allergic to a multilateral condemnation of organized crime.

Nor was that the only item that brought Venezuelan objections. The committee pledged to fight "emerging terrorist threats" such as cyber-crime and bioterrorism, assaults on tourism or critical infrastructure and the use of weapons of mass destruction and related materials. It proposed "developing and adopting cooperative programs" to fight these new terrorism potentials.

Venezuela raised its hand again. "There is no common definition of emerging threats," its delegation insisted, adding some other gobbledygook to complain of "elements that are not consistent with the realities of the hemisphere." Again, this seemed a baseless objection designed to disrupt the process. Other delegates pointed out that the hemispheric declaration on security signed in Mexico City in 2003 already defines "emerging threats."

Finally, the committee declared a commitment to 1540, which, it said, "seeks to prevent the possibility of access to, possession of, or use of materials and weapons of mass destruction and their means of transport by non-state agents." Venezuela rose to object again on the grounds that the OAS agency is not "the appropriate forum" to debate 1540. Could anyone in the room have ignored the fact that Colombia's FARC guerrillas, who Chávez has been caught supporting, are "non-state actors"?

Delegates were said to be privately aghast at the Venezuelan performance. And rightfully so. With oil prices continuing to climb and the Venezuelan government using every dollar to gain more power domestically and internationally, the guy who once looked like a useful tool to employ against the gringos is now recognized as a regional menace.

It was reported to me that governments as politically diverse as Argentina, Mexico, Chile and Colombia lined up together in opposition to the Venezuelan effort to disrupt the Bogotá conference. But a more critical test of Latin solidarity will come when the region decides which Latin nation gets to succeed Argentina as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. The two candidates are Venezuela and Guatemala. America's ambassador, John Bolton, has said that Venezuela is not acceptable, setting up a choice for Latin governments between reassuring the U.S. or appeasing Chávez.

In a further demonstration of U.S. concern, the Pentagon announced this week that a U.S. Navy carrier strike group will deploy to the Caribbean Sea.(surprise surprise - it didn't take exxon long to flex its mussles) The U.S. is taking Chávez seriously. Maybe the region's other democracies, who are more at risk, are doing so as well.
 

2canplay

TRIBE Member
The Globe compared NFLD to Venezuela yesterday.

The Mainstream Media certainly do a good job of guarding the interests of their clients (and I don't mean their readers). Makes me want to Vomit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

DEBORAH YEDLIN



CALGARY -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper will visit Newfoundland next week and his timing couldn't be better. While his trip was undoubtedly planned long before the collapse of negotiations between Newfoundland and a four-member consortium seeking to develop the offshore Hebron oil field, it's a safe bet this issue will be one of the items on the agenda.

At least, it should be.

While Premier Danny Williams won't be meeting with the Prime Minister -- he'll be in Montreal -- Mr. Harper, an economist by training, should nevertheless make the point that threats of expropriation when the government doesn't get what it wants are not exactly conducive to economic development. He also needs to help Mr. Williams understand that economic rent in and of itself -- in this case, royalties from oil or natural gas production -- is not what creates wealth.

Economic activity serves that function and Mr. Williams needs to learn the difference.

This week's federal Throne Speech made reference to the U.S. being Canada's "best friend" and largest trading partner. If this is truly how Mr. Harper and the Conservative government view Canada's relationship with the U.S., it follows that Mr. Harper can't be too happy about Mr. Williams' posturing this week on Hebron, which is being developed by a consortium that includes two U.S. oil giants.

It's admirable that Mr. Williams wants to stand up and make sure Newfoundland gets its fair share from future oil and gas development, but he's taking too short a view on this. And he's not picking the right battles.

First of all, Mr. Williams needs to look in his own backyard and recognize that economic sustainability is not achieved by negotiating one project after another -- it happens when the right environment is created to foster development.

Mr. Harper might cite the examples of Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan to illustrate how the energy sector has created a sustainable economic base; everything is in place to attract and retain the exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas.

Nor are the governments of these provinces changing the rules in midstream.

Mr. Williams was in Calgary at the provincial Tory gathering last weekend. Surely it wasn't lost on him that Alberta's wealth has not been created because the government has been goosing royalty rates or taking equity interests in the megaprojects under way.

If Mr. Williams had taken the time to speak to a few of the energy executives that were in attendance at the weekend's convention, he would have found out that there is a constructive way of getting an equity interest in a project, whether it's being acquired by a private company or a government.

It usually works like this: A company agrees to pay a certain percentage of the price tag to earn an equity interest in a project. For example, they will fork over 15 per cent of the total costs to earn a 10-per-cent share. This was not offered by Mr. Williams to the Chevron-led consortium.

The holders of the Hebron lease signed on the dotted line with the understanding that they would go ahead with development of the field when it made sense from an economic perspective -- that is, when oil prices were high enough to justify both the cost and the risk of developing this complex project.

The fact the Hebron project is stalled isn't going to reflect on Newfoundland very well. The energy sector, though global, is a very small community. Word spreads fast about where it's good to do business. And when Mr. Williams lauds Venezuela's recent actions, which led to Exxon Mobil leaving the country and the properties of the other two European companies being effectively nationalized, then adds veiled threats about passing legislation enabling the province to expropriate properties if companies don't meet his terms, it does nothing to encourage investment in Newfoundland.

Mr. Harper might propose a more positive way of dealing with this issue.

As it stands now, the leases held by the Chevron group don't expire. This means there really isn't any incentive -- other than the current high price of oil -- to push ahead. They can choose to wait out Mr. Williams and his government.

It would make more sense to set an expiration date when leases are sold so that if one company or group isn't happy with the terms offered by the government, someone else can give it a go. Instead, as it stands now, it's lost revenue for an indefinite period of time -- when oil prices are high.

The reality is this: Production at Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose is going to decline and Newfoundland needs to provide the right environment for the future sustainable development of its energy sector. This week it took a few steps back. Mr. Harper might need to gently nudge it forward.

Otherwise, Newfoundland might come to be known in energy circles as Canada's Venezuela.
 

swilly

TRIBE Member
2canplay said:
WSJ is out swining (again) today:
------------------------------------------------------------------

Terror's Apologist in Caracas

By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
April 7, 2006; Page A13

The scene was a Washington meeting of the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism, an agency of the Organization of American States. It was just days before the committee's March 24 Bogotá gathering, when it planned to issue a declaration on hemispheric cooperation to fight terrorism.

The room was filled with diplomats, working to hammer out the final text. But as it turned out, the meeting was anything but diplomatic. In fact, some who were present say things got downright ugly.

The source of the ugliness was Venezuela. It repeatedly insisted that references to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 -- which seeks to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- be stripped out of the Bogotá document. On three different occasions, one source told me, Venezuela stated its opposition to "non-proliferation" language.


This eventually provoked a heated exchange -- bordering on a shouting match, witnesses say -- when Colombia went mano-a-mano with its Andean neighbor, insisting that 1540 was essential. The rest of the room unanimously backed the Colombian stance. Venezuela was left to stew alone. (The Colombians present could not be reached for comment but others in attendance confirmed the confrontation.)

The American left is having a field day blaming anti-Americanism in Latin America on George W. Bush, the Iraq war and even the Cold War. But what has gone little noticed is the fear Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is engendering throughout the region. Latin governments are sobering up to the fact that if the Yanquis ever do go home, the vacuum left behind might well be filled by the Ugly Venezuelan. He currently is making news by grabbing foreign-owned oil fields and using his oil riches to buy fighter jets and thousands of AK-47s, which hardly suggests peaceful intentions. His close ties with dictators in Cuba, Iran and Syria are similarly disquieting.:rolleyes:

At the Bogotá meeting, the "Declaration of San Carlos on Hemispheric Cooperation for Comprehensive Action to Fight Terrorism" was supposed to be a standard multilateral communiqué, a tiny first step to show regional solidarity against terrorism. But Venezuela behaved like a skunk at a garden party. "They made no sense," one participant told me. "It seemed like they were just trying to derail the whole thing."

Perhaps, though, there was method in the madness. Take for example the document's recognition "that the activities of transnational organized crime can be used by terrorist groups to finance and facilitate their criminal activities."

All countries signed onto that statement except for Venezuela. It filed the following largely unintelligible footnote: "The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela cannot support the wording . . . which is geared toward pointing out a direct and permanent connection between terrorism and transnational organized crime, as that entails a repudiation of the norms of due process and the presumption of innocence -- universally recognized principles in the area of human rights."

The relevance of this high-minded objection to what was actually proposed was not evident to the other delegates. As one participant described it, the Venezuelans were "very disruptive, very unhelpful in acknowledging the links between organized crime and terrorism."

But perhaps the proposed joint statement struck a nerve. A Venezuelan congressman close to the Chávez machine, Luis Velásquez Alvaray, has been accused in a massive corruption scandal and, according to the Economist magazine, has "retorted that drug traffickers are running Venezuelan military intelligence" and that Interior Minister Jesse Chacon "is a pawn of organized crime." Whatever truth might underlay all this intramural name-calling is hard to fathom, but it hints at why the Chávez regime might be allergic to a multilateral condemnation of organized crime.

Nor was that the only item that brought Venezuelan objections. The committee pledged to fight "emerging terrorist threats" such as cyber-crime and bioterrorism, assaults on tourism or critical infrastructure and the use of weapons of mass destruction and related materials. It proposed "developing and adopting cooperative programs" to fight these new terrorism potentials.

Venezuela raised its hand again. "There is no common definition of emerging threats," its delegation insisted, adding some other gobbledygook to complain of "elements that are not consistent with the realities of the hemisphere." Again, this seemed a baseless objection designed to disrupt the process. Other delegates pointed out that the hemispheric declaration on security signed in Mexico City in 2003 already defines "emerging threats."

Finally, the committee declared a commitment to 1540, which, it said, "seeks to prevent the possibility of access to, possession of, or use of materials and weapons of mass destruction and their means of transport by non-state agents." Venezuela rose to object again on the grounds that the OAS agency is not "the appropriate forum" to debate 1540. Could anyone in the room have ignored the fact that Colombia's FARC guerrillas, who Chávez has been caught supporting, are "non-state actors"?

Delegates were said to be privately aghast at the Venezuelan performance. And rightfully so. With oil prices continuing to climb and the Venezuelan government using every dollar to gain more power domestically and internationally, the guy who once looked like a useful tool to employ against the gringos is now recognized as a regional menace.

It was reported to me that governments as politically diverse as Argentina, Mexico, Chile and Colombia lined up together in opposition to the Venezuelan effort to disrupt the Bogotá conference. But a more critical test of Latin solidarity will come when the region decides which Latin nation gets to succeed Argentina as a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. The two candidates are Venezuela and Guatemala. America's ambassador, John Bolton, has said that Venezuela is not acceptable, setting up a choice for Latin governments between reassuring the U.S. or appeasing Chávez.

In a further demonstration of U.S. concern, the Pentagon announced this week that a U.S. Navy carrier strike group will deploy to the Caribbean Sea.(surprise surprise - it didn't take exxon long to flex its mussles) The U.S. is taking Chávez seriously. Maybe the region's other democracies, who are more at risk, are doing so as well.

What a fucking pile of shit!!!!!!!!

The US spends billions of dollars in columbia in its war on marxism i mean drugs. Chavez bought 100,000 rifles so that at least a majority of the men in his army could be armed.

I fucking hate the media.
Columbia has apache helicopters advanced tanks and tonnes of american military support.

The only real destabilizing force in the region is columbia and all the other south american nations know this.

What a pile of shit.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

swilly

TRIBE Member
Boss Hog said:
Alberta's got 300 oil operations going, Newfoundland has 4...

The alberta wealth fund, which was created to provide long term economic development in alberta after the oil runs out, ceased recieving contribuitions around the same time raplh klien came in. Instead all those extra profits are going to exxon and mobil etc..

( ps I am sure you read the same thing "its the crude dude" as well).

Fucking harper and klien. Too bad you can just go out there and shoot the cunts like you used to be able to.

I probably just set off about 100 alarms right now at the CSIS.
Key words " oil, wealth, harper, klien shoot, cunts" hahah well maybe not the last one.

swilly
 

2canplay

TRIBE Member
Chevron moves to close down Hebron...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Chevron rushes to disband Hebron
PATRICK BRETHOUR, STEVEN CHASE

00:00 EDT Wednesday, April 12, 2006

CALGARY, OTTAWA -- Chevron Canada Ltd. is moving at top speed to dismantle its stalled Hebron offshore oil project, with two senior managers already dispatched to Australia.

The company said it and its three partners have no intention of reopening talks with Newfoundland any time soon, even as the province moves quickly to give itself the legal tools needed to expropriate holdings in Hebron and get the project back in development. Months of negotiations over Hebron broke down this month, prompting Chevron to announce last week that it would suspend the project and disband the team of workers assembled to propel it.

Premier Danny Williams has said he believes Irving, Tex.-based Exxon Mobil Corp., the largest Hebron partner, is responsible for the impasse -- the companies say it was a unanimous decision -- and has vowed to force a sale of its stake if necessary. Trade experts warned that any move to expropriate could cost billions, and would virtually guarantee a mammoth lawsuit from Exxon under NAFTA.

But Chevron and its partners are already moving on. Richard Eldridge, project manager for Hebron, and senior engineering manager Colin McNeilly left the province on Friday, just four days after Chevron announced that negotiations with Newfoundland over Hebron had foundered.

"We've put things in motion at this point that cannot be undone," said Chevron Canada vice-president James Bates.

Chevron said it will take at least two years to rebuild the project team -- and it will not even start to do so until it hammers out an agreement with Newfoundland on the fiscal terms of the project.

But the company is in no hurry to do so, saying "in no uncertain terms" that the current talks are ended, despite Premier Danny Williams's warning this week that expropriation legislation is imminent.

"We're at a point right now, we need to take a deep breath," Mr. Bates said, declining to specify how long a breather the Hebron consortium needs.

Neither Chevron nor Exxon Mobil would comment yesterday on the growing threat of expropriation. The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that Mr. Williams will meet today with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to push for his support for "fallow-field" legislation that would allow the province to expropriate the holding of any oil company that allows a field to remain undeveloped too long.

More than half of the 60-person project team -- a third of which are native Newfoundlanders -- is expected to depart in the next three weeks, with the rest of the workers leaving either the province or Chevron by the end of the summer, spokesman Mark MacLeod said.

It is an ironic twist to the Hebron saga: A megaproject touted as a way to bring high-paying skilled jobs to Newfoundland could end up accelerating the brain drain of the eastern province to Alberta and elsewhere. "It will, unfortunately, continue the out-migration," Mr. MacLeod said

The company will not have any difficulty in finding positions for those workers as it seeks to launch projects across the globe. The two senior managers are already headed to work at Chevron's Gorgon natural gas project offshore of Australia, and many of the Hebron team that are to decamp this month will head to Calgary to help develop the company's new oil sands plans. "We have many high-priority projects where we are screaming for people," Mr. MacLeod said.

Mr. Williams said the possible dispersal of workers is of no concern, since Newfoundlanders can, and have, returned home after learning skills elsewhere. The Premier said he expects to be pressured by the industry, but that he is sticking to his position that any future offshore project must give Newfoundland an equity position and will also have to pay super-royalties that rise with the price of oil.

Chevron said it had been prepared to pay royalties and taxes significantly higher than the three existing projects, adding that it continues to hope that an agreement eventually can be struck to develop Hebron.

Mr. MacLeod pointed out that his company is going ahead with plans to spend $140-million to drill a deep-water exploration well this summer in Newfoundland's Orphan Basin. Exploitation of any discovery there is years distant, meaning that the company has significant lead time before it would need to hash out royalty rates and other fiscal terms.

Ian Doig, a long-time observer of the Atlantic oil industry, said Newfoundland is exceedingly unlikely to shake the will of Exxon Mobil, which has had to deal with much tougher negotiations in developing countries. "This isn't going to send shivers through Irving."

And one trade expert said outright expropriation would give Exxon a "slam-dunk" case under NAFTA's controversial Chapter 11, which gives Mexican, Canadian and American investors the right to sue NAFTA partner governments for compensation and damages. "They'd have a wonderful case," said Todd Weiler, a North American free-trade agreement law specialist and an adjunct at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington.

"This would be the most blatant example of regulatory confiscation since the NAFTA was negotiated."
 
Last edited:

2canplay

TRIBE Member
Hmmmm...

It's so wierd that latin america doesn't want to sign on to NAFTA. So strange. I mean it would open up so much investment - the oil companies would spend billions importing workers and equipment to search for oil. When the oil is found they will extract it for you - on their terms. This insures you will get your oil developed but that you will have to bend over and take it, because they need to make 20%, nothing less. If your a poor country, make it 30%, because its more "risky." If you don't like the deal and want to buy them out by giving them back their money plus interest - that's not good enough.

Oh, and if you think they will be employing your workers, don't get too excited about that either.

I guess its fair?
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
There is a problem with taking private assets and nationalizing them that most people want to pretend doesn't exist. Much of what is the US argument with Cuba stems from seizing US corporate owned assets without compensation. Its very tempting to allow foreign investors in to discover or develop industry and then when they are profitable kick the company out and seize the assets under the guise of defending the poor.

The problem with this is that it often it means that foreigners won't trust you to not do the same to them so they don't invest. Additionally it becomes a matter of tit for tat in that often these business's pressure there local government to return the favor by seizing the other countries assets. In the case of Venezuela its very tempting after they nationalize oil projects for the US to nationalize CITGO gas stations in response. This is basically what the USA did after Castro seized US hotels and tourists resorts.

Everyone likes to bring up the environmental damage that oil exploration extraction and refinement cause. Its funny because the gas stations they feed are also toxic and often become unfit for residential housing development for decades after they are abandoned. Its not a zero impact process or product and this isn't a secret its well known to all parties.

Currently everyone likes to hark on globalization and on how it has oppressed the poor and made life miserable. However one must also look at the products being produced. would Mexico have anywhere near the automotive or manufacturing industry it has without the free trade agreements allowing these products to move to the markets where they are sold. How would Brazil’s cattle industry survive without the ability to export beef to the US. For that matter how would its domestic grain industry survive without the reciprocal trade in seed stock and grain (USA and Brazil have 180 days difference in growing season). How would Chile fair without globalized trade when over 1/3 of its economy is based on trade with Europe, North America and the Asian pacific rim.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
Everyone likes to bring up the environmental damage that oil exploration extraction and refinement cause. Its funny because the gas stations they feed are also toxic and often become unfit for residential housing development for decades after they are abandoned. Its not a zero impact process or product and this isn't a secret its well known to all parties.
Canada on verge of cancer crisis

I wonder what degree of environmental pollutions are causing the rise.

Currently everyone likes to hark on globalization and on how it has oppressed the poor and made life miserable.
This is a common misquote. It's not "globalization" that's the problem as much as the "corporatization" of the globe.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Boss Hog said:
Canada on verge of cancer crisis

I wonder what degree of environmental pollutions are causing the rise.
Really this is a political peace trying to push Harper into pumping money into preventative measures and testing. Unfortunately http://www.cancer.ca/vgn/images/portal/cit_86751114/31/21/935505792cw_2006stats_en.pdf.pdf page 46 shows that over the last decade incidence and mortlity have in fact been decreasing or leveling off.

More fear equals more money, but even with vastly improved reporting and classification cancer is actually very level and if anything its going down.

This is a common misquote. It's not "globalization" that's the problem as much as the "corporatization" of the globe.
How about 'industrialization' as corporations are an abstract business model more than anything else. Its true that with advances in farming we no longer require 1/10th as many people to do the job. With the increased role of automation population has effectively become a burden rather than a benefit. What we have seen is that smaller populations are now able to effectively do better than larger populations. Western Europe and North America have seen natural population fall to 1.7 per couple or shrinking status without immigration. The Asian rim has followed suit with this model with the most startling example being China with its 1 child policies.

Many of these nations that we are seeing having the worst times are sitting in the 3 - 4 range per couple meaning that jobs are going to be incredibly scarce and thus labor markets horribly depressed. It also increases the number of people that education, health care, water, food and pensions must be provided to without allowing for any greater efficiency.

Coal that used to take 100 men a day to mine is now done with a single machine in less than an hour. Tree fruit picking that used to require teams of unskilled labor is now done with tree shakers in 1/10th the time requiring very few actual people. This has lead to all commodities having far less value than they used to and has further exasperated the problem with the notable exceptions of copper, oil and a few other minerals.

The mechanisms of industrialization are blamed for fracturing societies and social orders while we ignore the industrialization and specialization itself. It no longer makes sense to build a car all within a single nation, building the engine in one place, the interior in another and the electronics in several more and finally assembling them in the destination market makes more sense and is actually more efficient.

We simply don't need massive numbers of unskilled labor for anything. This isn't a matter of corporation or of globalization. Domestic industries don't need these people either anymore.



Nationalism is devisive and meaningless
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Without trying to make sense of all of that, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion from that cancer stat sheet. But it does say quite clearly on page 50:

Cancer is primarily a disease of older Canadians. Notable declines in mortality have occured in most age groups.
So I'm not sure they're trying to make a problem look worse for funding. Fact of the matter is a huge portion of Canada is in the age of risk (baby boomers). I think they're fair in asking for more funding for early screening.

In the same doc on page 54 it says 1 in 4 Canadians will die of cancer... that's still a pretty alarming rate when you think about it.

As for the rest... what?
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Boss Hog said:
As for the rest... what?

Its unfortunate because the cancer thing was really just a footnote and nothing significant to what I was really trying to say. If you wouldn't mind I'd rather discuss the rest of what I had said and let the cancer thing go.


Without trying to make sense of all of that, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion from that cancer stat sheet. But it does say quite clearly on page 50:

"Cancer is primarily a disease of older Canadians. Notable declines in mortality have occured in most age groups."

So I'm not sure they're trying to make a problem look worse for funding. Fact of the matter is a huge portion of Canada is in the age of risk (baby boomers). I think they're fair in asking for more funding for early screening.

In the same doc on page 54 it says 1 in 4 Canadians will die of cancer... that's still a pretty alarming rate when you think about it.

Cancer rates have been declining for the most part and are below the rates recorded in 1977. Mortality is lower than it has been since we started collecting stats.

But cancer isn't what is being discussed here at all. In fact until you brought it up nobody had really even mentioned it. I really was just humoring your article with actual stats showing that cancer is nowhere bigger a problem than it was when we started tabling the stats if anything its going down and not up. Now I agree old people fear cancer more than ever, and I agree cancer does kill many people, but its not an emergency by any means.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top