- Cyril Rogers
- November 18, 2012 - 11:45
JM has completed a detailed analysis, which I have taken the time to read, and I hope that anybody with any questions about this project will take the time to read it as well. His analysis points out the huge flaws in NALCOR's rationale and the disingenuous way that the government is twisting the facts to support an untenable position. Given their majority, they will rout the Opposition in the house but that only proves that they are ALL bullies or, in the case of their backbenchers, ALL sheep. If they had any integrity, they would stop sending out their chief puppets, Kent and Lane, to tweet their inane comments, and stop having their other backbenchers get on the open line shows to spout their misinformation. The Premier herself is acting like a bully, Mr. Wakeham, so why would you be surprised if Darren King is exactly like her in his approach? They are all clones of the Great One, without his verve and panache, but, nonetheless, a bully is a bully is a bully!!! Mr. Ball has taken a position on principle, and, in this instance, I would have been very disappointed in him, had he backed off from that position. There is not a whole lot of integrity in the Liberal Party at this point so a decision on principle is welcome. Besides, the debate is mere window-dressing to the bullies that are in control. They don't want the truth to get out, so they will obscure and confuse the electorate with a deluge of misleading and erroneous propaganda and happily use any excuse to stymie any real debate. A few of us warned, before the last election, that they were incompetent and dangerous in their obsession with Muskrat Falls, but many people still didn't vote and we consequently have a massive PC majority that was supported by less than 35% of the electorate. Perhaps, we got what we deserved, but do we really deserve to go down the road to financial ruin, or at least incapacity, with a bullying government that caters only to the business elite?
- November 17, 2012 - 07:53
There is one piece of critical information which has not been released by the Government, and it must be released to ensure that the Consumers in this province do not spend 50 years in the penalty box (Sorry it is not a strong analogy). That is the Power Purchase Agreement between Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The Power Purchase Agreement is reportedly for a 50 year term. It has a delivery of initially ~2 TWhr of power, gradually increasing until when the full output of Muskrat Falls will be used by the province of Newfoundland. But there has been nothing in the public domain as to when the energy will be delivered (ie; equal amounts per month, or primarily in winter when we need it). More importantly it does not state what capacity (in MW) will be guaranteed to Newfoundland Hydro. This is important because in the DG2/DG3 numbers presented in the CPW analysis Nalcor have assumed that the Muskrat Falls plant has been modeled as an unconstrained thermal generation unit of 900 MW (Go to page 16 of the following link http://www.pub.nl.ca/applications/MuskratFalls2011/files/exhibits/NalcorSubmission-July6-11.pdf) . This means that we can effectively get 900 MW when we want it. I would like to understand if the Power Purchase Agreement would have similar language. This is critical because if we have access to 900 MW (as the cost comparison assumes) how can Nalcor then sell power to Labrador Mining, or indeed also give 167 MW to Nova Scotia? Also what hat are the penalties payable from Nalcor to Newfoundland Hydro in the event it can’t deliver it’s obligations. It is a critical piece of information. It’s omission from the public debate is as obvious as the omission of hockey from Saturday nights.