What does the business school have to say?

I am delighted with the Public Utilities Board report on the Muskrat Falls project.

The government and Nalcor have been hoisted by their own petard in attempting to manipulate the results of the review by manipulating the very conditions upon which the PUB had to operate.

Think of it: Nalcor presents a series of conditions and numbers, projected over 57 years no less, that are difficult to disprove because the conclusion is built-in to the assumptions and numbers upon which it is based.

So Navigant, Manitoba Hydro, the consumer advocate and at least one local economist were simply asked to confirm the addition of the numbers presented to them and the economist in question didn’t even get that right. The whole process was tautological in nature.

Now Dean MacDonald has closed off my centralist Liberal option by joining the government’s and Danny Williams’ obsession with Muskrat Falls. He states, “…but I can tell you you’re not going to ask Mr. Vardy or Mr. Penney to build a dam for you … you’re going to ask Nalcor, Navigant, Manitoba Hydro.” (The Telegram, April 5).

This is a specious argument which clearly implies that the rest of us meatheads should shut up.

MacDonald condemns the head of the PUB, a former chairman of the

PUB, former experienced civil servants, respected engineers and scientists, and the rest of us fools who dare question the substance and the process of evaluating the project.

The condescension is palpable.

Might I suggest he just lost a lot of Liberal votes with that statement?

By the by, where is our well-reputed school of business on this issue, or any of our professional schools for that matter?

What do they think of a 57-year

business plan — a plan of Nostradamic proportions?

Have they all been intimidated by the captains of industry?

Never mind chasing silly awards around the world, forget the money the schools get from industry; don’t be intimidated by teachers or administrators, muck into this and have something to say. I’m sure you have the courage to make a contribution to the debate.

Don’t make the same mistake I made in 1969 on the Upper Churchill contract by not saying a bloody word.

After all, it’s your future, not mine.

Robert Rowe

St. John’s

Report or Study splitin hairs: - April 12, 2012 at 18:37:07

The only plan the Pc's have left now, since interfering with the process to influence the out come didn't work, is not to bend the the rules, but to change them completely by legislation. Because hey, they can't work under the law we have, they are incapable and any thing else would be criminal.

Submit a comment

MBC: - April 12, 2012 at 18:14:08

I agree Mr. Rowe as I have stated before that the MUN Engineering and School of Business should give us their opinions on this $ 10 Billion project.

Maurice E. Adams: - April 12, 2012 at 15:38:38

If are successful (and we must think that we can be, or why initiate the action), why are we seeking as a remedy/relief improved benefits for the Province only commencing since around 2009? +++++ That makes no sense to me. ++++ If there has been an injustice and that injustice has been occurring since the 1980's or so, then shouldn't we be asking the court to also compensate for such past injustice as well? (not from 2009 or so onward, but from the time, the year, that the injustice commenced)++++++ If we have a case, and win, it seems to me, that we are again short-changing ourselves to be only asking for a remedy commencing around 2009 instead of from the beginning. +++++ We should be asking the court first --- for the full amount, and second, in the alternative, from 2009 onward.

Maurice E. Adams: - April 12, 2012 at 13:34:58

John, the real cost of Muskrat Falls energy is around 30-40 cents/KWh. ...... IF we pay 16.5 cents, then our children and grand children will have to make up the difference. ....... The wholesale price for power in the U.S. (except where they are locked into 'take or pay' contracts like Nalcor plans for us) is now 2-3 cents/KWh due to a glut of natural gas (read yesterday's article in the Globe and Mail). ...... What kind of 'spot market' exists where you can sell power that costs 35-40 cents at 2-3 cents and make 2-4 hundred million a year in profits? ---- The only profits will be by the mining companies who will get a lifetime royalty on the backs of island ratepayers/taxpayers ---- the ones forced to pay for power that they have NO NEED FOR (the island uses only 2/3rds of its "existing installed NET capacity" every year. The 1/3rd left over (the not used portion) is almost double the 40% of Muskrat that Nalcor says we need.

sealcove: - April 12, 2012 at 12:22:38

John smith a danny williams minnow you can be sure

A question: - April 12, 2012 at 12:10:35

Who is "John Smith"? Could the Telegram please find out?

John Smith: - April 12, 2012 at 11:57:35

Just a few facts that show how Nostrodamic the muskrat falls deal is. The Bay d'espoir dam produces about 610 megawatt...muskrat falls will produce 824...not a big difference...muskrat falls will cost us about 4.5 billion,Emera picks up the rest, (in comparison we spend about 3 and a half billion a year on health care in the province) with a downpayment of 1.6 billion in cash, we will have to borrow about 3 billion, with the loan guarantee, low interest rates, the 2-4 hundred million a year in sales on the spot market...I hardly think this is anything like the 13 billion worth of debt the liberals left us with in 2001...that was Nostrodamic in proportion. Not to mention the muskrat development will not be shown on our provincial debt, but will be shown as an asset. Another fact...today in Maine they are paying about 14.5 cents U.S. per KWH for residential users. We will be paying 16.5 cents a KWh in 2017 for Muskrat power...about the same, and we live on an island.

MaggyCarter: - April 12, 2012 at 11:49:04

Well stated Mr. Rowe. Your assessment of Dean MacDonald's position is spot on. By not distancing itself from MacDonald's arrogant and offensive comments, the Liberal Party has demonstrated that it too has succumbed to the special business interests behind this fraudulent scheme to fleece the taxpayers and ratepayers of this province for the next sixty years. The economics of this project are so bad that NALCOR and government have had to carefully concoct an alternative (isolated island option) that looks ghastly so as to make Muskrat look better by comparison. They were highly offended when the PUB declined to sign on to their Machiavellian plot. Your comment regarding the MUN School of Business is valid, but I would not have expected either the university or the School of Business to wade in the side of common sense. They are far too beholding not only to government for funding but also to the very corporations that will benefit most from this planned pillage of the public treasury. This is reflected in the way in which the Harris Centre offered itself up as a platform for a badly researched, inaccurate, one-sided defence of the project by Wade Locke - a MUN economist noted more for his penchant for publicity than for the quality of his research. Had the Harris Centre really been interested in providing an objective forum for public policy review, it would have ensured that both sides of this issue were properly represented. That said, it should be noted that numerous MUN faculty and staff have spoken out individually against the madness of this project. Jim Feehan, a highly respected economist at MUN, has publicly stated that the project is not necessary, is not economically viable and that it should be shelved in favour of a commitment to energy conservation and alternative energy development. Dr. Steve Bruneau has provided a very strong case for natural gas as a much less costly and more efficient solution to our energy needs. Dr. Maynard Cloture has publicly refuted NLCOR's claim that wind power is not feasible. And, of course, a great many MUN professors and researchers have condemned the environmental impact statement for Muskrat as being woefully inadequate and inaccurate.

I would like to know more: - April 12, 2012 at 10:55:08

I would like to know more about the history of the Upper Churchill. Everyone knows Quebec got our electricity cheaper but was the public aware of how the numbers would all play out “before” Churchill was built? Or did they suddenly find themselves having trouble with their bills, and then discover that nothing could be done about it? Politicians take on tremendous responsibility and they must get tremendous pressure from businesses but ultimately, they are the ones in charge and the ones responsible. I think they need a lot more input and help from the general public in their important work. It’s not enough for us to just go out and vote once every four years and then just leave our future in the hands of the chosen few. If we could do more to help our politicians make the right decisions and choices, they could do more to turn our communities into prosperous and healthy places for all our citizens. Joey and Danny had dreams of building their own legacies but our greatest legacy would be to show the world how a down and out place pulled itself up by the bootstraps. By blowing all our money on Muskrat, I fear we are losing a rare and extraordinary opportunity to become a role model for the rest of the world and the kind of place where the quality of life makes all who live here proud to call this place our home.

Bern Coffey

- April 12, 2012 at 14:28:19

Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited filed a motion in court in Quebec setting out its position in relation to the history of the Upper Churchill. The motion can be read at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/motion-to-institute-proceedings-final-10-02-23.pdf

John Smith: - April 12, 2012 at 10:40:22

What a completely ludicrous, non-sensical, mis-leading, inaccurate pile of you know what. So This guy thinks we should dismiss what Navigant, and MHI and Dr. Wade Locke has to say, and call up the business school? LOL The naysayers keep talking about the narrow scope of the reviews, and how it was all a set up by the government. That is not true, and shows me that those who make these statements have not read the material pertaining to this development. Naviagant for example were asked about how Nalcor went about reaching their conclusions...about the viability of wind and gas, and how to build the project ect. They came back and sadi that Nalcor did an excellent job, and met or exceeded what others in the world have done to prepare for a large hydro project. The more the lunatic fringe tries to paint this deal as having...LMAO Nostradamic proportions...LOL the more harm they do to their already weak cause. Best to go back to the Danny Willimas conspiracy theory, perhaps you will win over a few with that...Give me a break.

Holden: - April 12, 2012 at 10:16:58

Finance used to be about figures and was an exact study. It is only in the last twenty years or so that theories have been added to the mix resulting in "junk bonds", "CDO's" and other concoctions. On the other hand economics is and always has been a complete hog pog of theories NOT ONE OF WHICH IS PROVEN. Economists are still fighting over whether Keynes was right or the Austrian economists or some other flavour of the month. Thus neither of these "studies" could be used to evaluate the Musrat Falls Project.

Maurice Rogers: - April 12, 2012 at 09:21:16

The business school would most likely give the same response as the economist because the only numbers out there are Nalcors. Finance and economics are very similar so I wouldn't expect any difference. By the way, it was later reported that the economist did get the numbers right but they were still Nalcor's numbers

Maurice E. Adams: - April 12, 2012 at 08:11:50

Well said Mr. Rowe...... I think however (and I stand to be corrected) that Nalcor's Board of Directors may already have representation from MUN's business school. .... So does that give Nalcor's 57 year plan more credibility, diminish the credibility of MUN's business school, or neither?

1°C

The Telegram - Opinion - Letter to the editor

What does the business school have to say?

Comments

Submit a comment

More

Newsletter

Death Notices and Obituaries

Recent Announcements

King, Cassandra Jean

Tely Twitter

Sections

More

About

Our Network

List of sites within the network

Digital Transcontinental Information - Newspapers group