• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Prescient
    February 21, 2012 - 21:01

    John Smith, in Sept 2006 Hydro forecast that Holyrood would consume 2.4 million bbls of fuel in 2010. In fact, it consumed only 1.3 million. The forecast overestimated needs by more than 80%. Of course it is challenging to make such forecasts, but such uncertainty highlights how risky it is to dam Muskratt Falls and build +2000 kms of transmission lines based on Hyrdo's current forecast of needs decades out. A more incremental approach to add electricity generation and manage demand would not expose us to the debt (and interest costs) that MF will. http://www.pub.nl.ca/applications/NLH2012Capital/files/p2-rfi/P2-IC-NLH-09.pdf

  • William Daniels
    February 21, 2012 - 20:17

    I agree with Peckford. This boondoogle happens "have" will be no more. Dunderdale and Kennedy are trying to ran this through. Stop the money flow to Nalcor now.

  • Cyril Rogers
    February 21, 2012 - 16:07

    PROOF OF WHAT....adding 6 or 7 billion dollars to our already large debt is a financial disaster waiting to happen. We already have the second highest per capita debt in the country and a debt of this magnitude will undoubtedly rank us as having the highest per capita debt...that is a dubious distinction to have for a so-called have province. It is true that rates will go up in future but by how much? With the MF project, it will double within 10 years, contrary to Minister Kennedy's assertions that it won't. They have already been given a 37.5% increase over the next 5 years but, in my opinion, that was to pay for preliminary work on MF, and they used that increase to argue that we would pay higher rates regardless of what developments take place in future. That is a red herring that they are using to obscure their lack of solid reasoning. Granted, some new sources of energy will be needed down the road, mainly to replace Holyrood, not because of any sudden demand. This will require rate increases but these should be more gradual and can be phased in over a couple of decades. The only way rates will increase dramatically is if MF goes ahead. If rates don't increase dramatically it will be simply an accounting slight-of-hand, because they will choose to defer most of the repayments to future generations. After all, the interest payments alone on 6-7 billion dollars will be in the range of 300-400 million dollars per year, especially in the first couple of decades. To put it another way, it will increase the debt for every man, woman and child in this province by $12,000 per person and would require roughly $1,200 to 15000 per household each year just to pay the interest.

  • Proof of what
    February 21, 2012 - 12:10

    There are no facts that MF will be a financial disaster just as there is no proof that it's the least cost option. What we do know is that rates are going to go up, regardless of what is done, and that other alternatives should be analyzed if only to have a thorough analysis.

  • John Smith
    February 21, 2012 - 11:21

    Oh, you mean the Brian peckford who oversaw the building of the Sprung greenhouse? The one who ran away with his tail between his legs, who left us the laughing stock of the country? The ex highschool teacher? Sorry, I would rather listen to the experts. If I did want the opinion of an ex-premier I would go to Mr. Williams. A rhode scholar, self made millionaire, laywer, and passionate Newfoundlander, who live here to this day giving back to the province he loves.

  • Cyril Rogers
    February 21, 2012 - 11:07

    "JOHN SMITH", this insanity will end if and when this government finally wakes up and realizes that this project is a financial disaster for the people of this province. There are plenty of alternatives that can be developed over the next decade, with far less risk and far less upfront debt. It will not be cheap but we will not be saddled with this financial monstrosity either. Simply spending the three hundred million per year(for 10 years) that we will otherwise spend on MF, will vastly improve the grid and bring on other sources of power. After 10 years of MF, we will still be multi-billions in debt and will need to make payments for another 40 years. By that time, much of the MF infrastructure will need replacing so anybody who thinks it will be free power after that time is deluding themselves. By the way, we can also now add former Premier Brian Peckford to the growing list of former prominent Tories who are saying we should abandon or delay this project. What's wrong with these former Tories, John?

  • JohnSmith
    February 21, 2012 - 10:24

    Man, when will the insanity end...this is truly becoming farsical. OK, if Muskrat is so bad, then what? Sit around untill 2017 and see if all the experts were right? We have a group of highly educated, highly reguarded people from this province, who are mandated by law to look ahead and forecast our energy needs. They are telling us we will need enhanced energy supply by 2017. No one rationally disputes this. MHI even went so far as to say Nalcor underestimated the need. So, if we can put that question aside, what then is the answer? If connecting to the grid, ridding ourselves of polutting Holyrood, and stabalizing rates is what we are looking for then there is only one answer. This is not a liability, this is a smart, well thought out development. The fact that we have money, that there is a loan guarantee, that we have private investment, only goes to show the viability of the venture. I have yet to hear any credible argument against the project.

  • Townie
    February 21, 2012 - 09:49

    The fallacy is that we should do things because of cheap money. Cheap money has been created by government to hide other problems in our economy. If we take this argument to its conclusion, we should ensure that we always have cheap money so that we can do everything. The result will, as in the case Musrat Falls, will be piles of debt for a life time.