- April 06, 2013 - 13:57
Unfortunately your comparison doesn't work, unless your truck could only be bought for $400,000 and would last 100 years. That would be comparable to the investment in Muskrat Falls, and yes, would need to be a long term investment.
- April 05, 2013 - 20:51
Great analogy! I would appreciate it if anyone can answer this. If we took the power from upper Churchill, when it comes back to us, would it be enough to provide power for all the province? If so, would it be less costly to use this power and run a line to the island than the cost of developing Muskrat Falls?
- NL TURF
- April 05, 2013 - 20:34
Great analogy Mr. Jones. Had a laugh reading your column.Entertaining for sure!!. And then again ,not far from the truth!!
- Cyril Rogers
- April 05, 2013 - 09:32
Mr. Jones, your truck analogy captures the essence of this fiasco known as Muskrat Falls. It is only going to get worse as that money pit continues to suck up more and more of the revenue generated by oil. When the cost overruns get to the point that they can't keep up though, they won't be able to "sell" the dam. Then we will see the destructive power of a dam that did not yet give way.
- April 05, 2013 - 07:21
I blame your greedy children for your situation. Have you considered sending one out to foster care?
- Jon Smith
- April 05, 2013 - 06:58
The saddest part of Muskrat is that in spending an excess of $ 5 billion to go around Quebec and spite them as opposed to going through Quebec cuts off our collective noses to spite our faces. By locking in the captive NL ratepayer, government inflicts higher rates on the ratepayer, denied by legislation the cheaper power generated on the mainland. Joey Smallwood's bad deal which did not cost us anything out of pocket but denied us fair revenues will look pretty good when compared to denying us fair rates by locking us in to a boondoggle where we will pay through the nose while our friends on the mainland once again enjoy the benefits- how more exasperating can it get than that?
- Maurice E. Adams
- April 05, 2013 - 06:55
Your comparison is not much of a stretch when compared to the 50 year debt yoke that government and NALCOR is locking around the necks of our children and grandchildren. If Muskrat Falls was truly needed, affordable and a reasonable risk (a true 'investment' in other words) perhaps it could be justified. But it is not needed, not affordable, and too great a risk. PERIOD.