Muskrat Falls is the right choice

We want an independant study of those figures

- July 3, 2011 at 14:32:39

Mr. Adams stated in his commentary of July 3, 2011 at 11:47:05 that......." A 36% increase over 20 YEARS means an additional $30 million dollars for oil --- 20 years down the road. WHEREAS a doubling of the total revenues (let's say to NL Power) would mean annual increases of revenue from rates to NL Power from $537 million in 2010 to just under $1.1 BILLION). Where do you think that additional $537 million is coming from"? Mr. Adams I am pretty sure where the $537 million will be coming from, but another concern of mine who is going to benefit from that $537 million? I think I know the answer but I don't want to see this development go ahead and find out the hard way, like we did with the Upper Churchill; and then the burden will be placed on those who can least afford it, an aging population of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I want an independant study of the figures to make sure that we Newfoundlanders and Labradorians won't be over-paying for this Muskrat Falls development and that it must be a project that can stand on its own without our people having to pick up the tab for whatever ails this project down the road like cost over runs, excess power with no customers, etc.

Submit a comment

Maurice E. Adams

- July 3, 2011 at 12:09:03

It is also interesting to note that the $110 per barrel of oil that Minister Skinner refers to is not what Holyrood pays (Holyrood uses the much cheaper heavy fuel oil). But this is the kind of misleading comment that Nalcor also puts out when it tells NLers for example that the 40 year historical compound average growth rate for electricity is 2.3% per year (when they had to reach way back to 1970 to come up with that stat and the real compound average growth rate for the last 20+ years is 23 times LESS THAN that --- 0.1%) --- almost ZERO growth rate. Also, Nalcor does a similar thing when it states that Holyrood uses an average of $1.5 million worth of oil a day when operating at capacity --- without telling the whole picture --- which is that $1.5 million per day gives the impression that Holyrood is using $1.5 million times 365 days, or $500 million worth of oil a year --- when in fact it is about 1/5th that amount because it operates at capacity for only a short time in the winter and is shut down entirely in the summer). The info I have received from Nalcor says that Holyrood for the last 10 years has operated at between 18% and 58% capacity --- so the capacity is there to absorb Vale's Long Harbour plant. Also, Humphries and Henderson says oil will take 20 years to increase to $150 per barrel -- that's 20 years to go up 36% (from the $110 that Minister Skinner quotes). The average cost for oil for Holyrood over the last 10 years is $96 million per year. A 36% increase over 20 YEARS means an additional $30 million dollars for oil --- 20 years down the road. WHEREAS a doubling of the total revenues (let's say to NL Power) would mean annual increases of revenue from rates to NL Power from $537 million in 2010 to just under $1.1 BILLION). Where do you think that additional $537 million is coming from?

Submit a comment

Bob

- July 2, 2011 at 21:10:29

In another column on another topic Randy Simms calls for straight up answers rather than hanky panky like Skinner's bullship in this case. It gets even worse when Skinner's bullship is followed by two of Hydro's PR hitmen Humphries and Henderson. They sure know how to pile it on. I say to Skinner, if you're so hyped-up about giving a true accounting of Muskrat, open the books to an INDEPENDANT audit. Better still have the intestinal fortitude to recind Danny's edict (of which you were a part) to make Nalcor a closed shop.

Submit a comment

Cyril Rogers

- July 2, 2011 at 20:22:23

It seems that Minister Skinner is blowing enough wind in this letter to make up for the days when there is none. He gives vague generalizations in trying to refute other peoples' figures and offers none in return. Why not wind power, Minister Skinner? If oil continues to increase then wind power projects will make economic sense and the least we could do is look at investing in this kind of technology for some of our needs. Your government is taking us into a very iffy financial firestorm with the Muskrat Falls project as it currently stands. We cannot afford this project, sir! It is a bad deal for now and for future generations!!!

Submit a comment

Nalcor's and Mr. Adams figures need further scrutiny

- July 2, 2011 at 18:41:23

For my province and my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians peace of mind, given there is such a big discrepancy in Nalcor's and Mr. Adams figures, I sure would like to have an independant accounting firm do an analysis on both sets of figures. I don't want to be paying double for my Hydro Bill so that the monies will go into the pockets of God only knows who. Those two sets of conflicting figures cannot be passed off without further perusal. We need assurance as to which set of figures we can place faith.

Submit a comment

Maurice E. Adams

- July 2, 2011 at 09:33:29

Here are the historical demand facts from Nalcor's own technical briefing:---- in 1989, historical demand was 7400 GWh and in 2010 it was 7500 GWH --- that's a compound annual growth rate of only about 0.1% (23 times less than the 40 year average growth rate of 2.3% which Nalcor touts --- Nalcor gets a 2.3% increase because 98% of the historical growth was from 1970 - 1989). An almost ZERO average growth rate since 1989 --- and the only major demand increase on the horizon is for Vale's Long Harbour plant which will need another 730 GWh). Vale coming on stream will bring the island's demand back to what it was in 2004 (about 8300 GWh)---- and we met that fine with Holyrood at that time. At $74 per barrel, that will mean Holyrood oil costs will increase by about $92 million a year. Not an insignificant cost increase. So if overall rates will be up 37%, and NL Power had "Revenues for rates:" of $537 million last year, that will mean a 37% increase on $537 million, or $200 million. So besides paying $92 million for oil for Holyrood, where is the other $108 million that NL rate payers will be paying going? And if overall rates do indeed double, $537 million will be just under $1.1 Billion (that's almost $1 Billion MORE PER YEAR than the extra $92 million cost for Holyrood)

Submit a comment