- Cold Future
- September 13, 2012 - 12:34
If we needed power and absolutely had to shut down Holyrood generatiing plant down, it is preferable that we take an ecomomically viable approach rather than shooting our feet off by developing an expensive project for export which ratepayers have to subsidize so the power can be sold at discount rates to the benefit of mainland consumers. We would also be cutting of our noses to spite our faces as well because Hoyrood can be modified at reasonable cost and then provide clean cheap reliable power well into the future. Muskrat would be economically viable at $3 billion, is a scary money loser at $6.2 billion and an economic disaster at $9 billion.Why take the risk ?- for political reasons? to save face? because we have a majority government and we can ram it through? What a leaving for the grandchildren !
- Maggy Carter
- September 13, 2012 - 09:15
This Muskrat proposal becomes more bizarre by the day. If (or more realistically when) it is sanctioned and built, it will provide fodder for academics, historians, policy and planning experts, and legal scholars for decades to come. If it fails (which we hope will not be case), if it threatens or damages the fiscal position of the province which is only now earning some degree of credibility, or if it becomes a crippling burden on the ordinary ratepayers and taxpayers of the province, then there will be a push for a royal commission of inquiry to ascertain how such a wrong-headed project could have survived the scrutiny of the checks and balances that our system of government purports to have. Should that happen, NALCOR's interpretation of the gateway process will hold more than passing interest. Using language that would puzzle any corporate lawyer, Ed Martin as CEO of NALCOR is not only assigned the role of gatekeeper but the implication is that the board of directors are merely another group to be consulted. Project sanction appears not to be contingent on the board's overt approval. It does mention that the gatekeeper will seek shareholder 'alignment' (whatever the hell that is). One wonders whether the NALCOR board with its newly minted, woefully inexperienced, but politically trustworthy members (i.e. - they will cease barking and heel whenever ordered to do so), have ever been offered instruction regarding their fiduciary responsibilities in accordance with Canadian law and judicial precedent. Despite their undoubted coverage under liability insurance policies, Canadian courts have become far more demanding when holding board members accountable for the actions of the corporations they purport to control. No, there is much about this process leading to project sanction that could keep investigators busy for years. Any future government commissioning such an inquiry would, of course, as a first order of business make clear that the powers of the commissioner would trump the gag legislation passed by the Dunderdale government such that the Commissioner would have full access to the records not only of government, but NALCOR and its subsidiaries as well as that of Cabinet itself. We know of course that much of the record will have long been expunged before then. In this day and age, however, (unlike the days preceding Churchill) the destruction of digital records is not always as easy as calling in the shredding companies.
- September 13, 2012 - 07:47
Another day to rattle the Muskrat gate.
- George S.
- September 13, 2012 - 07:28
There were many, many people who contributed to the decision making to develop the Upper Churchill and penning of associated agreements. We seem to peg everything on Joey Smallwood. Maybe we should do it right for the Muskrat Falls Project. The Government of NL should set aside $100,000, and erect a huge marble mural. The mural would have the names of everyone who participated in the process: Martin, Williams, Dunderdale, Kennedy, Keating, Bennett, (the other) Bennett, etceteras. Everyone! In the coming decades, we will be able to celebrate their brilliance and never forget their business prowess and vision. Or, just maybe, we will always remember the people who directly contributed to the bankruptcy of Newfoundland. Put your legacy where our money is folks!
- Maurice E. Adams
- September 13, 2012 - 06:49
I think the DG 2 numbers had a margin of error of -30 to +50 percent (as the project was only a little better than 5% defined). However, to have passed DG2, other options such as natural gas (and others) should have first also been properly assessed/studied and NOT tossed aside on the basis that --- "we looked at that".
- September 13, 2012 - 06:41
Anybody who asks critical questions stands to be ridiculed and branded a traitor. The editor is on a fine line here. Here's hoping he can walk the tight-rope.