Prof. Wade Locke’s lecture for the Harris Centre at MUN last week was interesting.
As expected, he reprised Nalcor’s position on the proposed Muskrat Falls project more or less in exact detail. Clearly he agrees with and supports its conclusions, honestly and professionally.
Regrettably, little if anything new was added to past Nalcor presentations, tiresomely reiterated since first offered way back in early 2011.
In like manner, no intellectually satisfying answers were given to questions raised elsewhere by interested citizens nor to most queries at the show itself. Professor Locke honestly acknowledged not only his own fallibility but also his expertise being narrowly focused on economic questions, many vitally relevant matters lying beyond.
Two welcome new snippets of information, off-project, however, did come to light.
First, the Harris Centre plans a second exposition, this time by Prof. James Feehan, on the same subject but with different extended content (hopefully) and Locke himself has joined an increasing chorus of public opinion (now shared by former natural resources minister Shawn Skinner) calling on government to abandon its ridiculous stance of ham-stringing the Public Utility Board’s statutory duty to express a considered opinion on the whole matter.
The continued problem with Nalcor’s (and government’s) decision to date respecting the project’s rationale and validity thus remains painfully obvious.
The basis question is not whether Nalcor is wrong in postulating Muskrat’s power to be more cheaply accessible than alternative combined sources on-island.
The real question is whether or not they are right in forcing that opinion on the public, absent cogent, unbiased information on related issues troubling knowledgeable observers, expressed time and again.
Just some of those issues may be briefly summarized as follows:
• Does Nalcor accept that, worldwide, energy-generation and inextricable-linked politic-economic forces are presently in such serious turmoil that now is decidedly not the time for hugely expensive local commitments with probable irreparable consequence? (Especially so for the “bolt-from-the-blue” Muskrat Falls, left rudderless by its mentor.)
• More specifically, has enough weight been given locally manageable wind-energy possibilities? (Nalcor’s own consultant, Navigant, has said no).
• Has potentially available energy (minimum 530+ MW) from now-extant Labrador sources been investigated as thoroughly as has Muskrat Falls? (This includes Upper Churchill “recall power” of 170 MW, now exported south, Twin Falls 225 MW, Menihek 18 MW and unused CFLCo power, 120+ MW.)
• Has upgrading on island hydro electric capacity been considered in detail? (Current capacity is 57 per cent utilized — Bay d’Espoir itself only 51 per cent.)
• Has possible acquisition of liquified natural gas for Holyrood oil replacement been given the in-depth attention it obviously deserves? (Jurisdictions elsewhere are actively doing so.)
• What are the details (if any) of negotiations with Hydro-Québec concerning added purchases from Upper Churchill? (Hydro-Québec now sells to Ontario, the Maritimes and into the U.S.)
• What possible use can a 35-year-old, low-capacity sub-sea link to Nova Scotia be for our province upon ownership in 2053, 12 years after Upper Churchill power contract’s final termination? (Twin Falls and lines were shut down upon advent of the larger Upper Churchill in 1976; will this be the fate of Muskrat Falls — and Gull Island — when superceded by access to Upper Churchill power?)
These (and other) concerns are not quixotic but aim squarely at the core of the matter. Nalcor (and government) ignore them at their peril.
Dr. J.F. Collins is a former Progressive Conservative finance minister.
He writes from St. John’s.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Well said Cyril "Experience is the name everyone gives to the mistakes" Oscar Wilde Maybe we should listen to these voices of experience Ms. Premier for those who do not listen to the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.