The risks of Muskrat Falls

Winston Adams

- July 11, 2012 at 16:05:15

Yes , there is wisdom in the masses, but only if they are properly informed. Too many still think MF is a good thing. It is indeed a complex issue and most don't understand a lot of what's going on. At the PUB hearing Andy Wells commented that 5 or 6 hundred a day were following the hearings on line. So, a lot more were following DAYS OF OUR LIVES. Most don't realize what our heat bills will be in 2017, And Kennedy is not being up front with this, and therefore misleading the public. Should Kennedy form the referendum question? Only the PUB can address these concerns. And serious energy efficiency approach requires a culture of conservation, as expressed in the ENERGY PLAN but being ignored by our government. Check out the sites at efficiecny Vermont ,Effeciency Nova Scotia etc. We need to follow their example. Why spent a 125 million on oil each year and 1 or 2 million on efficiency rebates.

Submit a comment

Maggy Carter

- July 11, 2012 at 13:57:56

Given this province's history of corruption in government, given the extraordinary level of incompetence - amounting to gross negligence - in its past industrial dealings including and especially the Upper Churchill, and given the enormous size and economic implication of the proposed Muskrat scheme, then Ms. Dunderdale must do the honourable and responsible thing which is to submit this to a public referendum. Ms. Dunderdale has implied that she received a mandate for this project in the last election. This is absolutely untrue. A prerequisite for public support for a project of this magnitude is that the electorate is first properly informed. The public must be given reliable cost projections, an independent assessment of the technical and financial risks, and a realistic demand forecast on-island and off. If the premier and CEO Martin are confident in their position, they have nothing to lose by putting it to a referendum. There is, as they say, wisdom in the masses. This would be so much better than the present tactic which is to conduct a public relations campaign in forums like this everyday, using despicable characters like John Smith to disseminate information about the project which it knows to be false. Ms. Dunderdale should ignorel the lobbyists and insiders with an axe to grind, including those at NALCOR. If this thing turns ugly a decade from now, it is her name that will be held up to ridicule. It is never too late to do the right thing Ms. Dunderdale. I must admit that, as someone who voted for you, I thought you were better than this.

Submit a comment

Cold Future

- July 11, 2012 at 13:24:30

Muskrat is a dud because it does not meet any reasonable criteria to make it a cost recovery venture. It requires a take or pay contract to ensure financing. The take or pay puts the last resort responsibility on the ratepayer in NL in order to sell power on the mainland at mainland rates. The problem is there are many folks in NL that require subsidy to be able to heat there homes already. That means that the oil revenues have to be uased to pay for it. But there are too many wants that this oil money should be spent on such as the crumbling infrastructrure and the healthcare system. The only independent, arms length review of the project was undertaken by PUB. The PUB could not conclude because of insufficient reliable information. The people trust the PUB and need that independent review to see how bad the project is. Many fear that is too late, that we have gone too far down the path with Nova Scotia to abort the mission. Looks like Upper all over again. This is unfortunate but we must stop the whining and insist that the PUB complete its work. Hopefully we are not too far gone on a course that leads us to 'UPPER CHURCHILL TWO, THE SEQUEL.'

Submit a comment

Winston Adams

- July 11, 2012 at 13:17:41

John, your vision of MF as a stable , green power source for 100 years lacks economic sense at the present time. And Maurice E Adams vision to 2041 lacks a lot of detail- nothing specific for "bridging" for example. And yes, last year with record rainfall we spilled a lot of water. But what's the economics of making use of that? Too often a Vision becomes a nightmare. But present technology for energy efficiency, some more local wind and hydro can handle our island needs for 20 years or more with great economics. I offered you and Maurice advise on how to cut your home heating costs, as I have done by 70 percent, but you show no interest. Wonder why? More interested in visions than real solutions?

Submit a comment

Cyril Rogers

- July 11, 2012 at 12:46:54

If Muskrat Falls were a break-even proposition or even close to it, I would have less concern with its being built, but this project is so financially unsound as to be off the charts. When a project of this magnitude needs a massive infusion of provincial dollars before it can get even 55% of the projected costs from the lenders.....this is a grim warning that it is fraught with risk. Given the very high possibility that it will push closer to eight billions dollars before completion, the government will likely have to inject four billion or more into it as a straight cash investment. That leaves us in a perilous financial position for the measly 100 to 200 megawatts we supposedly will need for this island, going forward. All those billions, for such a small return, while Nova Scotia gets free power and the mega-mining operations in Labrador will get highly subsidized power, paid for by ordinary ratepayers like you and me. I find it fascinating how the government spin machine has turned this "need" for power to the island into a "need" for power to open these new mines. That reason was never even mentioned in the initial heady announcement....it was all about supplying much "needed" power to the island, giving Nova Scotia its 20%, and selling the rest on the open market. The fact is, it can only be produced and sold at a huge loss to U.S. markets, so I can only assume they have abandoned that concept, if it was ever seriously considered to begin with. The whole rationale for doing it was a scam and we are the dupes! It would be far cheaper to buy power from Quebec for these Labrador mines, at fraction of the cost of building this dam, but...that would make too much sense? Quebec is already selling surplus power to the U.S. at steep discounts, so maybe they'd give us a decent price, especially as more U.S. markets turn to other energy sources.

Submit a comment

Winston Adams

- July 11, 2012 at 11:57:10

John, you say MF was never meant to make any money- but the problem is it may likely lose a lot of money. We now pay 50 percent more than Manitoba and quebec and when MF is complete it will double those provinces. Some deal. What will those high costs do to demand? WE could grow cucumbers here too, but at what cost? We have a minor problem here with winter heating load. Efficient heating cuts cost to the equivalent of 2 cents per kwh for most of the year and 5.5 cents in the coldest of winter. If the government paid the whole cost for conversions its less than 2 billion. If they pay half its 1 billion. We have 600 mw of waste, more than the full average output of MF. And this will stabalize our cost at present rates, if may actually reduce yearly costs to residents since so much less electricity is needed. And can likey look after our needs for 2 decades. By then , with good management the government should be able to pay for MF with cash not with debt. Can you comment on this with some serious consideration?

Submit a comment

Ash Parker

- July 11, 2012 at 09:50:06

While we do not have the need for additional hydro power right now, we will. It will not always be economically or ecologically acceptable to use oil-generated power. Let's be proactive and prepare for our future hydro needs. Muskrat Falls must go ahead!!!

Submit a comment

John Smith

- July 11, 2012 at 09:27:32

Yes, the debate continues, but the lies and innuendo continue as well, unfortunately. First off, the cost to the people of NL will not be 6.2 billion, as Emera will pay almost 2 billion of that cost. Secondly. this project was an answer to the need for power on the island portion of the province, industry in Labrador was a secondary use for the power. The cost of the dam will be the same if we build it just for the 20,000 people in Labrador, or for the 485,000 that live on the island. Emera will pay all the cost for the transmission across the gulf, and even are to pay a portion of the line between the island and labrador.So...Mike...does it really make sense to spend 3.5 billion to build a dam for Labrador, and further billions on small hydro and converting Holyrood, only to be in a power deficit a little further down the road?What makes muskrat such a smart deal is we will be providing a stable, non polluting source of energy for the whole province...one that will see ample supply for at least 60-100 years down the road.Can't people see how utterly assinine it would be to spend a bunch of money on supplying power to the island via small hydro etc. then having to scrap all that in 10 years and looking for other ways to generate? Doesn't it make seanse to make use of the lowest rates in history, our best credit rating in history, the loan guarantee, the sale of power, all to make this project even more viable? Or should we spend a bunch of money now, stagnate our economy, endure sky high power rates(just increased last week by 8%) rolling black outs like yesterday in Alberta, buy more oil from the middle east, watch as the stacks in Holyrood belch more cancer causing smoke into the air?Muskrat falls will provide us with all the power we will need for residents as well as future industry, it provides us witha link to the mainland, a way not only to sell power, but will allow us to persue the development of wind and other alternatives. It will stableize rates forever, we will be paying into our own NL owned resource, we will have an assett that will last more than a 100 years. This project was shown to be viable without the loan guarantee, without the sale of power to Emera, without the connection to the mainland...those benefits just add to the deal. It was never, never, never ment to be a cash cow, never ment to make any money, but was an answer, a very very good answer to the upcomming energy deficit we are facing in this province. It makes sense on every level...let's make it happen the sooner the better for us all.

Submit a comment

Get Down to it

- July 11, 2012 at 09:24:03

Unfortunately, the only debate is taking place on forums like this. The risk is that the debate is between people that do not have the skills or training to debate it. We need a real debate by people with the training and experience to evaluate the need and the cost of this project and it's alternatives.

Submit a comment

• 

  John Smith

  - July 11, 2012 at 10:02:50

  Well, I have read what Nalcor, Navigant, MHI, Wade Locke, and others have put forth on the project. They are all very competent sources. The only ones coming out against the deal are a few fringe elements, with no alternative that makes any sense.

• 

  get down to it

  - July 11, 2012 at 11:01:05

  Good for you, you can read. But what skills, training or experience do you have to evaluate or analyze the data? None, most likely.

Maurice E. Adams

- July 11, 2012 at 08:36:46

If the mining companies really need the power, let them build it (which would cost them about $3 billion) --- and use it at a very reduced rate for 35 years. After 35 years the power would revert to the province. That would still be about half what Emera is prepared to pay for their 20% ---- and at no debt, debt servicing and operating costs to the province.

Submit a comment

• 

  John Smith

  - July 11, 2012 at 09:57:41

  Maurice, that's a great idea...the only problem is what do the 485,000 of us who live on the island do for the next 35 or 40 years? Oh I know...let's spend 3 or 4 billion on a stop gap measure to get us through for another ten years...right? As far as a private company running the show that is exactly what went wrong with the upper churchill...as soon as brinco got involved it all went sour for NL. That's why I like that Nalcor will be running this one...not some for profit outfit out of australia or south america...

Cold Future

- July 11, 2012 at 08:14:55

Muskrat has been an expensive dud of an idea right from the get go. But it may be too far down the road and it may have been taken too far with Nova Scotia to stop the runaway train. Sounds pretty much exactly like the Upper Churchill fiasco. If the governem,nt comes to its senses, which is doubtful, it will send it to the PUB and let them finish the assesment on the project. The least we should know is how bad it really is before we plunge into the biggest giveaway and economic drag on our government finances.

Submit a comment

• 

  John Smith

  - July 11, 2012 at 10:10:21

  Why is it a dud of an idea? Explain it to me...how is it even remotely like the UC...explain it to me...the PUB was given 9 months and 2 million dollars and they came back saying they couldn't make a decision because they needed the D3 numbers...info that hadn't even been calculated as yet.How is it a giveaway? how will it be a drag on gov. finances? I would love to know the answers to these questions...