Something's fishy about Oilweek's "Some facts about the Atlantic accords"

There's something fishy about Oilweek's latest article "Some facts about the Atlantic accords".

Here's the full article, the comments are mine :)

Some facts about the Atlantic accords: (Offshore-Dispute-Quic)
Original Deals: The federal government first signed the original Atlantic accords with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in 1985 and 1986, respectively. The accords spell out how Ottawa and the two provinces share revenue from the offshore energy sector.

Facts are good.

Updates: The agreements were updated in 2005 to ensure the provinces become the “primary beneficiaries‘‘ of their offshore oil and gas industries.

New protection: The new deals gave each province 100 per cent protection from clawbacks of equalization payments.

New deals sound good too.

Result: That means the provinces wouldn't be penalized with smaller equalization payments as their offshore revenue grew.

These results are clear too! But then this:

Budget changes: Both provinces now say the March 19 federal budget guts the two accords by reviving the equalization clawback and introducing a cap on equalization payments _ changes that could cost both provinces billions of dollars.

Indeed, and what Both provinces say is not only what they say, it's a.k.a. the truth. Why not putting it this way? Reviving the equalization clawback and introducing a cap on equalization payments could cost both provinces billions of dollars. So much for sticking to the facts. But read on, more deliberate ambiguity ahead.

Ottawa‘s position: The federal government argues that the revamped accords remain in place and both provinces have the option of sticking with them.

The question of course is; Is this argument actually valid? Little do we find out about this from Oilweek's "facts about the Atlantic accords". Somehow that doesn't surprise me though. There's something fishy about Oilweek. More to unfold:

Provincial anger: Both provinces say Prime Minister Stephen Harper had promised a better equalization deal (italics mine), so offering the status quo (italics mine) amounts to a broken promise.

What does Oilweek mean with a "better equalization deal"? Isn't the 2005 "the" deal that was being promised in the first place? Isn't Oilweek a bit disingenuous by putting it this way?

What does Oilweek mean with "offering the status quo"? Isn't the 2005 the current status quo? Isn't Oilweek a bit disingenuous by putting it this way?

As far as Oilweek is concerned, only some facts seem to matter, others don't. Now I realize why the article is called "Some facts about the Atlantic Accords".

But why is the magazine called Oilweek?

- Wikipedia: 2005 federal budget
- Wikipedia: Atlantic Accords (stub)
- Wikipedia: Corporate Propaganda