• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Cyril Rogers
    November 08, 2012 - 12:15

    The government's reluctant decision to hold a debate in the HOA was always about optics. Simply look at the propaganda barrage over the past two weeks and you will realize that they are saying all the same things....but none of it gives any clearer picture because there is no rational way to promote this project. It stank from Day One and no amount of whitewashing and sanitizing of NALCOR's data can completely make up for the lack of a coherent energy plan. It is all subterfuge and twisted facts. They distort by making prophesies on the future price of oil and the future demand for electricity despite their inability to accurately predict oil prices correctly for one year, much less 50, and their wrong predictions foe electrical use over the last 2 decades. Any time a government dismisses its own PUB and a government-appointed panel, it is merely reaching for a foregone conclusion and when the facts don't fit...make up new ones. These were the only truly independent reports and..both were dismissed. The other two, from Navigant and MHI, were based primarily on data supplied by NALCOR....no surprise then that they favoured the project. Even then they injected important caveats into their conclusions. A debate in the HOA would expose these unpleasant and inconvenient truths so, yes, any excuse to shut it down and, of course, blame the Opposition.

  • Maurice E. Adams
    November 08, 2012 - 11:02

    www.vision2041.com Muskrat Falls referendum Poll Results Todate:......... Option 1 ... [12.5%] -------- Option 2 ... [7.5%] -------- Option 3 ... [25%] -------- Option 4 ... [55%]

  • Maurice E. Adams
    November 08, 2012 - 07:34

    Over the locked-in life of Nalcor's Muskrat Falls "take or pay" contract, Muskrat Falls will cost island ratepayer's about $26 BILLION (yes, that is correct) to "go around Quebec". About $26 billion more than if we bought the power from Quebec. See infographic at www.vision2041.com. That works out to about $500 million per year more, or about $1,500 annually per household.

  • Cold Future
    November 08, 2012 - 06:49

    Its a tough stand to take a majority attitude and bully your way to a decision that essentially forces the domestic consumer to pay the premium cost of $ 4 billion to go around Quebec when the fallout and hardship the taxpayer will ensure includes: escalating rates which outpace the national average and rates which will sit well above the national average. We have enjoyed rates within the middle of the pack in Canada up to now. Unfortunately we will have to endure the highest in the country. How that can ever be spun into a least cost solution boggles the mind. To have the elected members who are required to protect the public interests selling this like door to door vacuum cleaner salesmen, ignoring all of the huge risks boggles the mind.A majority government may fool all of the people once but the real consequences will inevitably surface, lest we forget the Upper Churchill contract.