• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • No Big Deal
    August 26, 2011 - 12:19

    The report seems to be only a speed bump with this project.

  • Eli
    August 26, 2011 - 11:34

    I never did agree with the process here especially the $350,000,000.00 already spent without one red copper being accounted for. But I think this assessment thing will be Harper's excuse to renage on his guarantee. Whoopee all around!

  • WG
    August 26, 2011 - 10:01

    To RJ. Unfortunately, the term environmental assessment is a bit out-dated. In fact, the mandate of the environmental assessment panel was to analyze the merits of the project in a holistic context, including environmental, economic and cultural considerations, among others - it is definitely broader than the antiquated term (as a result of federal and provincial legislation) would suggest based on an outside glance.

  • Frank M
    August 26, 2011 - 09:24

    Government or an independent analysis needs to explain the high cost to taxpayers and consumers (double provincial debt or double electricity rates) for this project that will make profits of hundreds of millions of dollars per year for the life of the project (100 years at least). Can't financing be arranged that does not hit the citizen????

  • Why did Danny go so quickly
    August 26, 2011 - 09:00

    The Williams Leegacy seems to have enough holes in it to drive a fleet of Mack Trucks through it almost as fast as the water flows over the falls. Can anyone say SET UP? Thats just what Williams did to Premier Dunderdale. He created this mess and walked away to let her take the heat for his blunder and never ending ego trip.

  • stanley oliver
    August 26, 2011 - 08:30

    The project still needs to address the lack of social housing needs that will be further experated by this project in Upper Lake Melville not just another study and or strategy development.

  • John Smith
    August 26, 2011 - 08:22

    So, they want more information. They are saying that there needs to be an independant review...OK. Funny how the headlines don't focus on all the benefits of the project, that were mentioned in the review. It would be a sad day if we lose this opportunity, but hey...that's the NEWFY way. Sign on to the upper churchill, no problem, yet throw this project in the garbage. So sad.

    • Give us ALL the facts
      August 26, 2011 - 10:09

      If the negatives outweigh the positives, this project should be shelved. An independent review would provide an objective opinion on the benefits of the projects vs. the risks. Who in their right mind would not want that information to base their decision on? The only people that I could think of that would want that approach are those that stand to personally benefit regardless of the cost to those that have to pay for it.

    • Reality
      August 26, 2011 - 10:21

      Ever hear of sober second thought, or are you only all about toeing the party line?

    • Carl
      August 26, 2011 - 13:47

      After reading John Smith's comment, I went to the report itself to see whether there are indeed positive findings that are being given short shrift by the media. It turns out there are many: "there would be net benefits beyond the province in the form of employment and business opportunities, greenhouse gas reduction, and energy stability"; "during the construction period, there would be substantial potential economic benefits for all areas of the province, especially Labrador"; "effects on fishing in the Churchill river would not be significant." These are just a few positive findings in the report. See the report for yourself if you want a balanced and informed opinion.

  • Maurice E. Adams
    August 26, 2011 - 07:40

    The recent Memorandum of Agreement effectively gives Ottawa, Emera and Nova Scotia control over the details/conditions that will be in the final guarantee agreement. That puts control of the project (and NL control/ownership of the generating station and transmission lines at risk in the event of default). NL and Nalcor make up only a minority on the committee that will decide the details and conditions of the agreement. ======= As the environment report states --- 'the need is not there'....... Nalcor's own document states that the "existing system (has an) installed NET capacity (of) 1958 MW", while Nalcor's Annual Report states that our "peak demand" last year was only 1305 MW (February), and furthermore that our peak demand has not exceeded 1390 MW for the last 5 years. Also, their documents also show that our demand has gone down on average more than 2% per year since 2004 (down a total of 16% since 2004). Also, the only significant demand on the horizon is Vale's Long Harbour plant which will add only 85 MW to last year peak of 1305 MW. So that still leaves an existing excess net capacity of more than 600 MW ===== So why do we need to increase our debt by BILLIONS -- so that we can get for island use 330 MW of very high cost power (and put the province's fiscal viability at risk?). Maurice E. Adams, Paradise

  • Dale Kirby
    August 26, 2011 - 07:28

    If an independent, more thorough analysis is recommended, it should be done. There's no rush here. Muskrat Falls is not going anywhere.

  • RJ
    August 26, 2011 - 07:15

    Can someone please explain why an environmental assessment report is commenting on "domestic demand requirements"??

    • Robert
      August 26, 2011 - 08:27

      The environmental assessment project weighs the merits of a project against resulting environmental costs. Domestic demand is being cited by the proponents as being the primary reason that the project is necessary. The committee is saying that they do not agree that the requirement is there, thus environmental damage is unnecessary.

  • Shannon Reardon
    August 26, 2011 - 07:02

    You could drive a Mack truck through it.