Looking forward to answers

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

I take strong exception to a couple of comments John Crosbie made in his column in the May 18 Weekend edition of The Telegram.

The first comment refers to the Frank Moores' government attempt to develop Gull Island and that these attempts were not successful because of the lack of necessary finances or financial credit for us to carry out these attempts. I am surprised that John is not aware of the real reason the Moores' government aborted the project was because they did not have a customer for the power.

The second comment he made was "critics of that project might keep in mind an observation of Sir James Dewar, who in the early 19th century reminded everyone that minds are like parachutes: they only function when they are open," the implication being that everyone opposed to the project has a closed mind. This is an insult to the many extremely qualified people that have offered concerns for the viability of this project.

In the meantime he intends, in his next column, to deal with what he believes to be our last and best chance to overcome the travesty of the Upper Churchill agreement. I look forward to seeing his rationale which would have to include:

- What contracts are now in place for the purchase of Muskrat power?

- What price has Nalcor negotiated for the purchase of this power?

- What is the time frame for these contracts?

- What is Nalcor's up-to-date estimate of the cost of Muskrat power?

To my knowledge, there has been no public disclosure of this information, which he has to have in order to justify the project. I look forward, with great interest, to reading his column this week.

Burford Ploughman

Organizations: The Telegram

Geographic location: Gull Island

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Corporate Psycho
    May 23, 2013 - 20:11

    Good luck getting that info Buford. Bill 29 took care of that. We are so screwed.

  • Ken Collis
    May 23, 2013 - 09:34

    Does everyone remember when Nalcor and government provided a site where we could ask a question about Muskrat Falls with an answer within 48 hours? Well I asked what would happen if government offered to use all proceeds from Muskrat Falls, sale of power, taxes, income taxes on employees who build it, etc... to help pay off the debt. How much would that amount reduce the ratepayers obligation? Here is the answers I have so far as of November 2012: Thank you Mr. Collis for your follow up. We do appreciate your comments on timing. We have received quite a few questions from interested members of the public and they are being answered on a first in basis. Some of these questions require more time and/or preparation than others. Our focus is on ensuring we provide accurate data and information to all queries. I am tracking the status of all requests regularly and I expect your response to be ready in the coming days. Mandy Any day now, I guess, I'll have my answer.

  • Maurice E. Adams
    May 23, 2013 - 07:52

    From DG2 to DG 3 Nalcor's cost estimates went up 24% (and if my memory serves, that would have have been substantially more except contingency costs were reduced by 50%). Nalcor now says its engineering design work is now gone from the 50% (at DG3) to 68% complete, even while also saying that the engineering work for stabilizing the North Spur will not be competed until the end of 2013. What if a new dam is needed? What will that cost be? Who in their right mind would build a dam/generation plant when an engineering fix and the cost for stabilizing the North Spur is not even close to being firmed up? If it will take a year to design a fix for the North Spur, it cannot be an easy or cheap fix. NL ratepayers are being taken to the cleaners.

  • Power hungry
    May 23, 2013 - 07:49

    Now, I can see what joey saw.