That LP STIP email this afternoon was absolute dog s-h-i-t. I don’t know what LP has to do to get a decent stip rating but that’s ridiculous.
11 replies (most recent on top)
Does gta mean something I don't know? Because gta as I know it has nothing to do with any of this.
Besides, if it was as clear cut as you think it is, it would not have taken so long to conclude. Armchair quarterbacking is so easy. But if this had succeeded it would have done tremendous things for the long term stability of the company.
It was worth the risk. Anything transformative carries the risk of failure. So you do what they did. Make sure the company is not over invested, and make the best case.
The level of opposition should've been expected. Bad ideas and bad planning from people that have no idea how to run things.
I honestly have no idea how any of this was acceptable in the gta.
You have to remember that the old agreement was expiring this June. The new contracting system was being proposed and there was enough interest in the contracts to make it work. So Enbridge started all of the processes to meet the deadline. Then the small companies began to petition the regulators and they eventually got the protest moving through hearings after Enbridge was already in flight. In short, a regulatory halt was not in the picture until half the money was already spent.
It wasn't like Enbridge was violating some fixed, clear law. The agreement was not found to be in the interest of Canadian industry - a pretty general description. It wasn't, "You're doing this and it's wrong!" More like, "That's not going to work for us. Sorry!"
The level of opposition was unexpected. It was a good idea that died in the national arena.
Those are two very interesting comments.
As far as viewing the bonus as 1/3 yours and 2/3 ours that’s a different perspective I’ve never considered and certainly something to consider.
As far as all the capital, reorganizations, and training that went into this my question would be why did all that happen beforehand? I’m asking because I truly had zero to do with that project, and unless I’m talking to a VP I doubt if anybody here was making the decisions on it so don’t feel like I’m attacking anybody, but what is the advantage to doing it that way?
Should we not have came up with a plan got it together left it to the CER to decide and then if they accepted it move forward with it? From the outside looking in it seems like a poor order of operations.
Well, the problem is you view it all as "your bonus". About a third of it is "your bonus" and two thirds is "our bonus".
More people than you think were involved in Mainline Tolling. A LOT of money was spent gearing up for full implementation at the end of the current tolling agreement last June. That included financial process and training, IT systems, reorganizations based on tolling "hauls", scheduling, ERP... it was a big deal. All the capital work has to be operationalized unless it has value independent of winning the agreement.
I wouldn’t disagree on the comment “99.9%” of people don’t create spills but a good portion of people directly impact the likelihood of a spill whether it’s through engineering reviews, procedure creations, wrench turning, or pipeline control.
The people who worked on the Mainline tolling idea would have been VY and the infrastructure planning guy who is on here all the damn time. I say cut their bonus and leave mine alone.
- 9% of staff aren't directly involved in spills, yet they're in the safety component.
Corp component is the "we're all in this together" piece. Has been for a long time.
Well, even going back five or six years, the largest portion of the STIP calculation was the "company as a whole", heavily based on EBITDA (or its replacement a couple years ago, a modified version that more closely measures financial performance). That was always something no one contributor could move the needle on. That also made the difference in STIP between a personal 3.3 and a 3.8 neglible.
That meant that virtually all of the investments in mainline tolling had to be negated and moved into operational cost. That's a financial hit to the bottom line. There was a lot of money spent.
I expected this, although I thought it would be larger than a .2 swing. I think you'll find it's not that significant. If the calculator is still out there, it'll probably show that the difference is probably no more than $500 for the front line.
It was in an email from CG titled “Continuing the Conversation”. He said that due to the mainline tolling decision from the CER we went from a multiplier of about 1.3 to 1.0-1.1
My feeling on that is don’t tie my bonus to some idea that a 3rd party government body can say yes or no to on a whim especially when 99.9% of LP didn’t have anything to do with that plan.
What was it? I'm OOO and would rather not log in if necessary... protective of my Holidays. :)