Charlie:
Check out this web site. http://www.corridor.ns.ca/welcome.xml Especially the left side bar where it says McCully.
Then ask yourself the question.
Why the Hell are we importing LNG when there is a proven gas field in Sussex??
Corridor Resources has been drilling around the Potash Mine in Sussex for 3 years now. They have drilled 7 or 8 wells and have struck gas in all of them. It's sitting there waiting to be shipped to market. the only catch is that they need a pipeline to tie in to the Maritimes North East Line some 40 Km. to the west.
My question is. Why the need to bring in LNG when all they had to do was help Corridor put a line in to Saint John?
11 comments:
Good question!!!Why wasn't our "so called Gov't" on top of this??
Probable Answer::No Irving Interest they would not have been in total control and god knows we couldn't have that now could we?????????
Sure and probably there is gas elswhere in N.B. Is there not some gas reserves outside Moncton towards Fundy National Park? More drilling needed.
The problem, however, is that you can drill into Bernard Lord's head and look everywhere and you will find no intelligence. Alhtough he produces lot of gas too. From his mouth and the other end. Do not stand anywhere near the guy if you do not want to get engulfed in gas.
hi there mr.leblanc,I was woundering if you are the
same charles leblanc that calls talk of the town all
the time?. ty.
Yes,,,,unfortunately I am the same loud mouth!!!...lol
MEMORANDUM
TO: Concerned Citizens of Fair Taxation
DATE: June 13, 2005
Fair Taxation
_______________________________________________________________
It is not only surprising but misleading for the Provincial Government to use the term An Act
to Comply With the Request of the City of Saint John on Taxation of the LNG Terminal.
The proposed Act does not comply with the City of Saint John's request. In fact, it is an Act
being established by the Province to control any taxes against the LNG terminal and its development.
It penalizes the City and the right to determine what tax revenue should be obtained over the years
which was a feature in the request.
If the Province wishes to fix taxation respecting the development of the LNG then it should be
the responsibility of the Province. The City did not request a fixed tax of $500,000.00. The actual
request was not for a fixed tax but for the right of the City to set a tax. The Legislation proposed by the
Province could realistically prevent the City from acquiring any taxes from the LNG. It gives complete
power over any taxation of the LNG terminal to the Province. The City will have no legal say. For the
Government to say the Act is in complying with the City's request is blatantly wrong. The title should
be changed forthright and it be made clear the Province is proposing a tax reduction not in compliance
with the request by the City. The Legislation proposed appears to be endeavouring to give favour to
a business which may not be justified from the Municipality perspective and over which the
Municipality has no control and then to blame the City for any tax shortfall arranged by the Province.
o hey charles! :-) hehe
i listen to talk of the town alot since this LNG crazyness started &
the
reason i wasent really 100% sure it was you & just wanted to point out
to
you is that when you mention your blog site on air all the time you
always
say it is or i should say it sounds like you say the address is
'gogocharlesleblanc.com', so i had a hell of a time finding your blog
site
lol, when the address is really oldmaison.blogspot.com. if ya get my
drift?.
hehe. just wanted to point that out & im glad im in the right
place,love
hearing ya on talk of the town bud & great site,keep up the fight!.
o & by the way i signed the petition for fair taxation,ty very much
charles
for having that up & pls try & make a point of telling rick each time
that
it is on your site for people to sign, i was woundering if they would
have a
website & thx to you i found it. :-)
take care,????,saint john.
Went on the website of Corridor Resources Inc. and listened to part of their annual meeting (pertaining to the McCully field).
Sounds like a good Company to invest in; if one had money to invest? Surprising that the Irvings don't already own it!
Wish them all the best as it sounds like their outlook for McCully is good. Wouldn't it be nice if more natural gas would be found here in our province and that we could join the ranks of Alberta and Saskatchewan as those who are profitting generously from these resources?
STATEMENT RE: LNG CONCESSION
Following is the first motion as passed by City Council on March 14, 2005.
“Whereas the development of this project is dependent on the taxation levels on this property being set at a level competitive with similar existing and proposed terminals in Atlantic Canada and North Eastern United States and existing terminals in North America,
Whereas the proposed project will create between 500 and 600 jobs during construction, result in an approximate direct injection of $26 million into the local economy and create 20 permanent jobs,
Whereas the location of the terminal at the most eastern extremity of the municipal boundary will not impose any additional costs to the existing property owners of this community,
Be it resolved that Common Council establish, insofar as it is within the City’s authority, a specific LNG tax zone to comprise only those lands on which the actual LNG Terminal, unloading facility and docks for the purposes unloading LNG will be located and further that
The municipal tax rate as otherwise determined under paragraph 87(c) of the Municipalities Act be adjusted annually so as to fix the amount due to the City of Saint John from the specific zone at $500,000. per annum for a period of 25 years.”
There are several factors to be considered:
(1) This is based on a taxation level being set at competitive levels. Inadequate information does not allow this to take place.
(2) It is based on 500-600 jobs, but does not indicate how many jobs last six months, how many last two years? Therefore the statement is misleading.
(3) The location of the terminal will not impose additional costs, on property owners in the community (the City of Saint John). It is understood this will require major changes in road construction and other services, cost of which is borne by all citizens.
(4) The biggest flaw is that the Council is to establish a special zone to comprise lands in which the actual LNG terminal loading facility and docks are located. There is no limit to the size or amount of construction of buildings or materials in this zone.
Indications are that at present it is planned to have two large tanks. However the number could be doubled or tripled yet the taxes remain unchanged. There is no definition of what is an LNG terminal and it could include substantial office buildings etc…
(5) Finally the concept of the municipal tax rate be adjusted is not within the power of the City at the present time.
The second resolution is of even greater import.
This reads “Resolved that Common Council request the Provincial Government enact amending legislation which would enable the City of Saint John to alter the Municipal real property tax otherwise payable upon a liquefied natural gas facility to be located in the City, upon such terms and conditions as the Council deems appropriate.”
This is not related to any specific amount but would enable the City to determine the area as to size, etc…to allow the City to alter the amount of tax, not set a tax rate but alter the tax on terms and conditions it deemed appropriate. This could mean that the City could alter the tax in effect to have no tax or it might even alter the tax to increase the tax. The powers are wide open and are not related to the concept of $500,000.00.
This form of Legislation is far beyond what could be required to implement the first concept. Further that there is no commitment or contract between the City and the facility nor even what or who is the facility.
The first resolution has no legal effect. The second resolution is most dangerous and it allows the complete deletion or any taxes without appeal.
good work on the lng information. get more about about the
pipeline, when
it was built, who paid for it, , etc.
and keep asking why the p.u.b. is not involved in the issue of LNG, who
are the
members of the public utilities board that they are not willing to be
seen
doing their job?
or actually do the job.
I wish there would be more comments from the readers!!!
Post a Comment