[herbie]

[Khar]

Worth keeping in mind, Curt, that that energy could be going elsewhere. The removal of the refinery and smelting operations means locations otherwise powered via other methods would instead gain from hydroelectric sources, hence still reducing the overall footprint.

As long as the operation remains, it is drawing power away from other uses and impacting the use of that energy. This is, of course, not really relevant to the matter at hand and makes all sort of assumptions on my part -- for all I know, the hydroelectric sources were constructed or are maintained by this company or for this company, and the loss of this location may reduce the feasability of leaving alternative energy sources running. Plus, I definitely feel the product produced, the water system of the region (which is managed by Vale for "free") and other economic considerations are worth the amount of energy going in anyways.

I would agree generally with the "so what?" factor surrounding Moore trying to toss his weight around, and I would also agree with the general long-running history of government payments not necessarily being honoured by the private sector due to a lack of enforcement. I have a feeling that at the negotiating table, the government got the choice between handing over some money or losing operations of that area right there and then, and wanted to improve the feasability of remaining in that position for further government support and a good environment to do business in. It might have worked in other cases, but it didn't work here. I have a feeling that if Vale hadn't gotten any money, they'd have pulled out immediately.

Which wouldn't have been a good thing either. I'm just betting on the government taking a bit of a hopeful gamble faced with some bleak odds and it coming back to bite them in the ass.

Andyt, I read the same thing, and you are right that they are trying to charge it under NAFTA. I remember that some experts watching the situation concluded the only reason the company was bringing it forward was so that the long legal and appeal process would give them time to escape some of the ramifications of what was going on, since memory serves them buying the operations and almost immediately shutting them down broke all sorts of contractual obligations. Trying to complain about NAFTA gives them adequate time to make a run for it and for damage to be done, and I don't think the Americans are going to be gung-ho to accelerate the process for our sake.

At the very least, Moore being there will get some attention on the issue and maybe we'll learn some more in future releases.

[Curtman]

Khar Khar:

Worth keeping in mind, Curt, that that energy could be going elsewhere. The removal of the refinery and smelting operations means locations otherwise powered via other methods would instead gain from hydroelectric sources, hence still reducing the overall footprint.

As long as the operation remains, it is drawing power away from other uses and impacting the use of that energy. This is, of course, not really relevant to the matter at hand and makes all sort of assumptions on my part -- for all I know, the hydroelectric sources were constructed or are maintained by this company or for this company, and the loss of this location may reduce the feasability of leaving alternative energy sources running. Plus, I definitely feel the product produced, the water system of the region (which is managed by Vale for "free") and other economic considerations are worth the amount of energy going in anyways.

The nickel would be mined elsewhere, powered by what? Also, almost half of the power generated up North is lost in transmission down to populated areas. It is produced by Manitoba Hydro, a provincial crown corporation. It makes sense to use it up there if we can.

[Khar]

If the nickel is not being mined at a profitable level, we have to assume that there is something which is not right up there, and that may be true elsewhere. High transport costs? Weather problems (it is sub-arctic there)? Or perhaps mining there is simply not worth the amount of energy being put in, and won't be started up elsewhere... considering the company is pulling out of the region, we can't simply assume that it's worth another company starting up a nickel mine somewhere else. It doesn't make sense to use it up there if the end economic benefits aren't going to cover the costs. It doesn't make sense for us to use farmland for products no one is going to use, just because the farmland is there. Same with energy. We also can't assume that assosiated waste from business living up there are not producing negative environmental impacts, like increased car use, etc,and that using the energy up there is worth it as a result.

After all, the commodity pricing for Nickel dropped through the floor in mid 2007, and hasn't really recovered since. Besides which, who says it would have to be transported south? The Northern Manitoban region has something like seven times the population of Thomson, and the city itself previously wasn't being powered by hydroelectric power (most of the province is run on natural gas from Manitoba Hydro, something like 95%). Clearly the community could create more, as Manitoba Hydro plans more projects up there and has one set for completion in 2012. Energy in this case could be fairly fungible depending on the end product produced. If the energy would be more useful in Southern Manitoba to produce other products then it should be shipped down there, especially if there is available infrastructure to take it.

Basically, if we can do two times more with that energy in Southern Manitoba, assuming that it really does lose half of all electricity on the way down south, then it should be in Southern Manitoba. With a slightly better climate, easier transportation routes and so forth, the environmental impacts of half that energy being lost might actually end up being positive. I also still cannot assume that because it is a crown corporation, it would stay -- the company is there to make money for Canadians, crown corp or not, and it may have only remained in it's current capacity because of the smelting operations there. The company claims that it uses only hydroelectric power, which makes me believe that might be true -- otherwise, they'd have to say they use 95% natural gas produced electricity instead if they are just drawing from the power grid.

As I said before, it's all really rather an irrelevant portion of the equation and we make too many assumptions here. PR on a company website and a lack of specifics on environmental aspects otherwise makes it tough to really discuss it in any detail. Discussing the environmental aspects is fairly pointless. As shown, it's not exactly core to the province's power supply anyways, I was just picking on the issue and demonstrating that it's a fairly irrelevant side topic for anyone to bring up or discuss, and that it could be the other way as well with regards to environmental impacts.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DanSC DanSC:

andyt andyt:

Scape Scape:

If the chair of the NRA came to Canada and did for Harper what Moore is doing for the NDP would you be all for that as well?

I wouldn't agree with him. But we have free speech in this country, so if he's doing nothing illegal then I couldn't really say much. Different than if a government official was doing it.

Actually I would probably like it if it was shown that Harper was in bed with the NRA - I doubt if most Canadians have much use for them.

I don't see why the NRA would care about Harper. The NRA's mission statement is to protect the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. That would seem to suggest they would only lobby inside the USA.

Nope, the political wing of the NRA has been lobbying in Canada for years now.

[Curtman]

Khar Khar:

After all, the commodity pricing for Nickel dropped through the floor in mid 2007, and hasn't really recovered since.

Vale sees record profit in 2011

$1:

The company plans to produce 300,000 tonnes of nickel compared with 65,000 tonnes a year earlier, and 330,000 tonnes of copper against 76,000 in 2010.

[nandan123]

[andyt]

nandan123 nandan123:

This nice comment.
PLR Articles

[Khar]

Curtman Curtman:

Khar Khar:

After all, the commodity pricing for Nickel dropped through the floor in mid 2007, and hasn't really recovered since.

Vale sees record profit in 2011

$1:

The company plans to produce 300,000 tonnes of nickel compared with 65,000 tonnes a year earlier, and 330,000 tonnes of copper against 76,000 in 2010.

First off, that is an inadequate response to what you have quoted of my post. Nickel commodity prices have fallen. Fact. The company has seen decreasing returns in Thompson compared to other stations like Voisey's Bay. Fact (WARNING: XLS FILE). The reason for soaring profits (as you have neglected to quote in your post, which is misleading in presenting that information) is due to a massive increase in the profitability of Vale's iron ore operations in South America. Fact. An increase in operations as seen in the aforementioned sources will likely be going to Voisey's Bay, in Atlantic Canada, likely in part due to the reasons I posited could impact profitability and viability of operations there. If you were Vale, where would you mine -- in the sub-arctic with difficult supply routes and logistics or in Brazil where they can mine the right ore while iron prices are booming? They already have logistical issues with the locations they have in more forgiving regions of Canada.

These are expansions of already present operations which were to be expanded anyways. Indeed, the smelting and refining services being phased out are due to the lack of actual local material wealth to continue using those facilities without extensive transport of raw ore from other sources to Thompson, one of the logistical and transportation issues I mentioned earlier. On top of that, the facilities present likely couldn't conform to new federal guidelines on SO2 emissions. Money will still be invested there and milling/mining will continue, but how can we really argue that a facility requiring massive amounts of transport of raw goods to the middle of no where was a good idea when transferring those facilities elsewhere would be better? Source (WARNING: PDF FILE).

In other words, it's like as I said. No new company will start up new operations or a new mine to combat this, because there is a lack of incentives for them to do so with the weak nickel commodity prices leading to high opportunity costs. Vale will alter it's operations to combat what, due to transportation and environmental concerns, is already not a feasible production facility by shifting focus to other operations and expanding those in response, since they already have adequate investment and capital in Canada, as well as infrastructure to continue operations.

Upon reading this, I have to wonder if this is not only economically feasible, but environmentally as well. I'm considering questioning my own assertion that environmental factors are a non-issue because of a lack of information. A ton of trucks, inadequate local mineral wealth to actually make these facilities work at total capacity and local environmental regulations impacting operations seems like it would easily offset any environmental benefits potentially present in the process. Indeed, it might be that the energy there right now might even be being wasted or offset to some degree! If half your ore needs to be transported via truck/rail to that location, I wonder how good that is for the environment, especially if you aren't even running the facility at capacity?

Sounds like this shift might be good for the people in the Maritimes and for those in Sudbury, the former of which has been in need of some form of economic stimulus for years. We might have given them one billion, but that press release shows that along with the shut down in operations in Thomson, Vale is putting 10 billion dollars into economic investment leaving a project which might have eventually been blocked due to Canadian legal problems anyways.

Miner Vale's Q4 profit to soar on iron prices

$1:

RIO DE JANEIRO, Feb 22 (Reuters) - Profit at Brazilian
mining company Vale probably more than tripled in the fourth
quarter due to a surge in iron ore prices and higher sales
volumes spurred by searing demand from China.

[Curtman]

Khar Khar:

First off, that is an inadequate response to what you have quoted of my post.

Sorry to disappoint you. It was suggested that Michael Moore should be happy about the reduced carbon footprint in shutting down a mine powered by hydro-electricity. I'm just saying that as far as mining operations go, it's one of the better ones environmentally.

[ShepherdsDog]

Does anyone else remember when Ziggy tried claiming that Thompson was a fly in community and the last settlement you fly over before you hit Hudson Bay(the largest body of fresh water in the world according to him). Now all ridiculing aside, for now, Vale's pullout is going to have repercussions over a larger area than just Thompson itself. The government should seek to recoup the money it gave Vale, as it was obviously given under false pretenses.

[andyt]

Never seems to happen tho. The govt just seems to give the money with not real guarantees. They should have a lien on Vale property before they give any money.

[Thanos]

Didn't Danny Williams confiscate the property of Abitibi-Bywater (?) for doing the same thing in Newfoundland? Too bad there's no one in the federal government (and that would surely also apply if the Liberals were in charge right now instead of the Tories) who'd ever have the guts to do the same thing on behalf of Canadian workers and resource-based rural communities.

[ShepherdsDog]

For years the Canadian government gave money hand over fist to corporations and third world holes, knowing full well they'd never see it again. Meanwhile Canadian farmers, students and small business owners were crippled with debt( a lot less than what they were giving away) that was resulting in bankruptcy and foreclosures. Forgiving their debt would have been an investment in Canada. Charity starts at home.

[andyt]

Thanos Thanos:

Didn't Danny Williams confiscate the property of Abitibi-Bywater (?) for doing the same thing in Newfoundland? Too bad there's no one in the federal government (and that would surely also apply if the Liberals were in charge right now instead of the Tories) who'd ever have the guts to do the same thing on behalf of Canadian workers and resource-based rural communities.

Yes he did. But they're suing us under NAFTA, so the Feds will have to pay them for lost property - ie all of us will pay. It was a nice gesture, but kinda pointless.