- Mark Noel
- November 07, 2012 - 01:28
Will electricity rates be "stabilized" the same way petroleum regulation stabilized gas prices? We don't need "stable" rates... we need CHEAP rates!
- November 06, 2012 - 19:07
Stund and stunder. They don't look very happy for men who are about to make billions, off the backs of us Newfoundlanders, they look so deceptive. How did our province get in the hands of these people. Sad.
- Cyril Rogers
- November 06, 2012 - 15:49
If, by STABILIZE, they mean that rates will annually go higher for the next 50 years, then I guess you could agree with their statements. Rates are actually guaranteed to go up by 7.5% a year for the next few years because of the increase they forced through in 2011. Why that amount in 5 years? In my opinion, it was to help pay for and justify their propaganda song that rates "will go up anyway". Of course they will, like everything else, but not necessarily due to oil increases. So far, oil has been flat or down since that increase but that hasn't topped them or caused a rollback. With Muskrat Falls, it is my understanding that we will see 2% annual increases for all of the 50-year period they are paying off the projects. That will amount to closer to a 200% increase over that period and, truthfully, there can be no turning back, once the project is built. We, THE PEOPLE, will be paying for it, and paying even higher rates when nobody is willing to pay for extremely expensive power from MF. The notion of conserving electricity or putting demand management programs in place does not interest them because they want expensive power to basically give away to these speculative mining ventures. Who cares if we are stuck with the bill? The business tycoons will get to grease their wallets and the party coffers of political parties who sell out to them. That, in reality is what this is all about!
- Fred Penner
- November 06, 2012 - 15:14
I can't resist....Maurice, I have attempted to educate you regarding spill in the past but it seems to fall on deaf ears. You clearly believe whatever suits your purpose - you have it both ways to use your words. You obviously don't have any idea about how a power system is operated and yet you persist with your babble containing facts and figures which you consistently misrepresent. Did Nalcor rain on your parade sometime in the past? What is the origin of your twisted thinking?
- George S.
- November 06, 2012 - 14:45
Nalcor and the Province negotiated a clause in the Hebron Agreement that it could take physical crude oil instead of 4.9% contribution of net sales. The Province owns crude oil. The Province hosts an oil refinery. A standard practice around the world is for refineries to be paid a through-put agreement to run crude oil for a third party. Hypothetically, Nalcor could pay North Atlantic to run OUR crude oil (or trade) and provide No2 Oil for Holyrood and sell the other products (gasoline, diesel, asphalt) on our behalf. In doing so, WE control the Holyrood fuel costs, do not add $12billion in debt to our ledger, and stabilize electricity rates. It is ridiculous to contemplate that the most expensive hydroelectric project in the world is our only option.
- November 07, 2012 - 06:07
This does not change the value of the oil, and what it costs. There is always an opportunity cost with an item. ie. The value you get out of using it vs. the value of not having the item (having sold the oil for cash). Exactly why do people think that with inflation, population increases, and development of india/china that oil prices will stay stable or go down? Where do you think more costs will be associated, inflation pressures on staff costs in NL and maintenance in muskrat falls, or inflation costs for staff + oil production facilities like hebron and the next mega oil projects around the world? Which will be more capital intensive? If it is more expensive to pull the black stuff out of the ground (and our oil is declining in production), why would we want to stay tied to it?
- Maurice E. Adams
- November 06, 2012 - 14:22
At first Nalcor said that increased Holyrood use would address Vale's expected increase in demand. .... However, Vale only accounts for less than 4.5% of the island's existing installed NET capacity of 1,958 MW --- about 1/4th of which went UNUSED last year..... Then when it was reported that Nalcor spilled 694 GWh of energy from its existing island hydro sites last year (an amount almost equivalent to Vale's yearly needs and Holyrood's production last year), Nalcor explained that away to the PUB by saying that they expected to continue spilling until Vale's demand comes on stream to supply the island's existing deficiency in demand. ..... So which is it? Will Vale's demand be met by increased costs at Holyrood? Or will Vale's needs be met through using the island's existing UNUSED capacity and expected spillage? Seems, Nalcor is very good at having it both ways --- whichever meets the needs of the moment.
- Tim Jamison
- November 06, 2012 - 14:17
We needed a study to tell us that water's price will remain stable while oil's price will only be going up?
- November 06, 2012 - 14:12
Will Martin control the House of Assembly Gong Show later this month too?
- Scott Free
- November 06, 2012 - 13:56
Whomever pays for the report, gets to determine the content and the findings.
- W Bagg
- November 06, 2012 - 13:48
if you are so sure of the rates, tell us today what they are and lock them in right now.
- November 06, 2012 - 13:53
They can't tell you the rate unitl they know how cheap the mining companies will get power
- Tim Jamison
- November 06, 2012 - 14:16
Another excellent option for bankrupting Nalcor. You naysayers are just full of great ideas
- Maurice E. Adams
- November 06, 2012 - 13:40
The premier recently said oil prices are expected to remain around $100 per barrel for the next 10 years........ How then can rising oil prices account for a forecast annual 3% increase in rates over the next 5 year? .... For the last several years Holyrood has provided only abut 10-12% of the island energy. ........... Over the last several years Holyrood operated on average AT CAPACITY for about 1 day each year ----- and last year --- not at all...... $324 million is a "projected" cost ---- a projected cost that is DEFENSIBLE only through intent or design.