• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Maggy Carter
    July 31, 2012 - 07:38

    @Anon - Your comment here and those I have read elsewhere indicate that you need to think a little longer before pressing 'enter'. Your brief comment at 17:55, July 30th contains what is known as an internal inconsistency. On the one hand you note that oil prices are - on the whole - rising rapidly. On the other, you say we need to get it out of the ground while it is still worth something. Which is it? Logic dictates you would slow production - to the extent it is within your control - if you are confident that the current downturn in price is a merely a temporary blip. Perhaps you have not been following it, but there is a growing consensus that a combination of demand factors, fossil fuel extraction technologies, and alternative energy developments could serve to dampen oil prices for decades to come. Once you clear away the BS that NALCOR and Dunderdale have heaped on the Muskrat debate, it becomes clear that oil will have to reach and remain at $200 per barrel or more before Muskrat becomes economically viable. To proceed in the face of those risks is not sound decision making - it is a roll of the dice. Is that how we want our governments to behave?

  • Maurice E. Adams
    July 30, 2012 - 20:16

    Yes ANON, by July 2012 oil had risen a full $1.50 per barrel above its last 6 year average --- a full 3/10ths of 1% per year (while Muskrat Falls will raise rates by a minimum of 2% per year, EVERY YEAR for the next 50 years. That is more than 6 times the average rate of increase in oil prices.

  • Anon
    July 30, 2012 - 16:25

    Oil is rising far more than it occasionally drops. We just need to go get the offshore stuff now while it's still worth it.

    • David
      July 31, 2012 - 08:45

      Newfoundland: experts in oil economics and price forecasting since 2004! After being in the industry for 75 years, Alberta doesn't pretend to know what the price of oil will be. What they ARE able to do is spend their revenues wisely. Alberta's debt? Paid off. Maybe the word "conservative" means more to Alberta than just a political party!? Maybe it's some sort of prudent, responsible approach to public finance. ....Naaaaah! They're just not as smart as Newfoundland. $124 it is..

  • Maurice E. Adams
    July 30, 2012 - 09:01

    And of course, those MHI 44% figures were based on old DG2 numbers that did not include interest during construction and cost overruns for the unneeded Muskrat Falls dam and generation plant.

  • Maurice E. Adams
    July 30, 2012 - 08:57

    Nalcor's last May 2011 'reference price' for oil used at Holyrood for the year 2013 was $122.50 per barrel. MHI said in its report that if oil prices were 44% less than what Nalcor was using, Muskrat Falls would have no economic (CPW) advantage........ 44% less works out to about $70 per barrel.... Nevertheless, as late as yesterday on the VOCM website, Minister Kennedy was quoted as saying that if oil went to $40 per barrel Muskrat Falls would still be 'least cost'. HOW CAN THAT BE? I guess it doesn't even matter what MHI says. OF course, this is the same Minister that keeps saying that Holyrood burns 18,000 barrels a day, when it over the last 9 years it operated at level on average for 5.5 days a year --- and last year --- NOT AT ALL (source? Nalcor's Learership website (April 27th response to question section). Also see www.vision2041.com

  • John Smith
    July 30, 2012 - 08:32

    It actually closed at $104 US a barrel on fri. The gov. predicted 124...the year is far from over yet.

    • David
      July 30, 2012 - 18:27

      The government couldn't predict umbrellas in a rain storm. And the year isn't 'far from over'......it's 7/12 over. Making up a billion dollar deficit in these last 5 months....that's how 'over' it is.

  • David
    July 30, 2012 - 07:26

    "With oil prices low....." Only in Newfoundland, where new blue-eyed sheiks meets keystone kops, could $90 oil be called 'low'. We are economic buffoons.