• Print
  • Send to a friend
  • Comment (11)
  •  

Investing in something other than a Muskrat

Published on June 25, 2012
Published on June 25, 2012
Topics :
Trans-Canada Highway , Straits of Belle Isle , Newfoundland and Labrador , Island of Newfoundland , U.S.

Most people would doubtless agree that the Lower Churchill Project — i.e. Muskrat Falls — could only proceed because of offshore oil income, secured by the 1985 Atlantic Accord initiative of the Peckford administration.

Since then, both successor (and

fortunate) Williams and Dunderdale administrations have maintained that developing Muskrat Falls is the best way (“least costly”) to utilize that hard-fought-for largesse — better than developing electricity generation in some way on the island of Newfoundland itself.

However, quite apart from those two possibilities, it is truly remarkable that different questions have never publicly been posed: is additional electricity production the best (and only) way to make use of this once-and-forever offshore oil bonanza? Should not other possibilities also be considered?

The following developments might serve the future economic welfare of the province more effectively.

• The major thrust for economic progress in the province has always been centred on the export market (fish, paper, minerals mainly, and recently oil). Present authorities express a like view for Labrador power, whether from the Upper or Lower Churchill River. Internal provincial marketing receives much less emphasis in governmental pronouncements and advocations.

• It is well recognized in most jurisdictions that whilst export trade obviously should be pushed, it is the domestic market that is most valuable in terms of general economic advancement. For example, 70 per cent of the U.S. economy is internally based; in China, increased domestic consumption is seen as a greatest need, no matter what the large stimulus from exports; and so on.

• In this regard, Newfoundland and Labrador exhibits five main areas

of economic activity (and population) — St. John’s metropolitan area, Gander/Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook/Stephenville, Happy Valley- Goose Bay, and Labrador City/Wabush. In a very real sense, each area  is largely self-contained and essentially separate and independent of the others — in each, a rise or fall of the local economy is little reflected elsewhere in a meaningful way.

• The cause for this unfortunate state of affairs seems obvious. An all-important blinding influence is ill-developed — in one instance, entirely absent — easy and convenient surface interconnections, particularly modern roads. Inter-area trade is inhibited, capability to interact being an essential element in all commerce. Main areas on the island had belatedly been inter-connected, as have the two Labrador areas. The two road-systems themselves remain separate and distinct.

The existing paved roads hardly constitute a means for easy commerce, for two main reasons — first, rather than designed purposefully as throughways between main centres, existing links in reality are mere “join-ups” between intervening smaller communities, used for local as well as through traffic; and second, the routes themselves are not “immediate” but of necessity lead more-or-less circuitously from one main centre to the next.

Even the Trans-Canada Highway bears little resemblance to Germany’s autobahns, Italy’s autostradas, U.S. turnpikes, or even the U.K.’s and France’s national routes. Travel is lengthy and tiring.

If the provincial economy is to reach its future potential,  the following minimal transportation additions are needed in order to permit each area of local economic activity augment the pace in and between each other:

• relative straight-line, multi-lane routes from main area to main area;

• bypasses at each main area;

• a traffic tunnel at the Straits of Belle Isle;

• communications/electrical inter-tie positioned along the inter-connected Labrador-island route.

The possibility of appropriate future high-speed railway lines should receive secondary consideration — now seen as essential infrastructure in advanced states.

At the present time, no planning seems to have been done to detail best methodology and the costs of these absolutely essential elements of sustained economic growth in the province. This is an immediate requirement. I suggest that expenditures for these purposes should have a much higher priority than Nalcor’s proposed Lower Churchill project.

Dr. J.F. Collins is a former Progressive Conservative finance minister. He writes from St. John’s.

Comments

  • Username
    What
    - June 26, 2012 at 09:39:46

    What? No greenhouses?

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Winston Adams
    - June 25, 2012 at 23:40:50

    John, You describe Dr Collins as whackie, as he suggests there be more vision as to how we use our financial resources. And you say Maggie Carter and Maurice E Adams are in their own lunatic fringe fantasy world. Not very polite of you. But to the point of Fantasy Worlds. AS you know , your expert, Manitoba Hydro pointed out that Nalcor doesn't use best practises in forecasting loads as they don't use "end use" models,and I suggest is something world class engineers should use. And of course neither Nalcor nor Manitoba Hydro consider efficient heating technology , which cuts electricity waste for heating by over 50 percent. They only see saving two tenths of one percent a year from energy efficiency! Yet here's the Fantasy World bit. Manitoba hydro says Nalcor should allow for more electricity use for future consumption by electric vehicles! Now really- how far in the future will this be a significant load here on the island? And where is the government program to promote it? Now it's a nice notion - but someone at Manitoba Hydro is in a fantasy world- dreaming up loads to justify a project, while ignoring load reducing technology for heating that is very suitable for our climate (unlike Manitoba's cold climate, where it would be much less effective) Even I can tend to fantasy- my highly efficient heating unit which on it's own cuts heating energy consumption by 60 percent , I installed the outdoor component in the attic, where it picks up solar gain and saves an exta 10 percent , and also is protected from the elements. And I sometimes imagine all the houses here with their dark shingles and that solar gain energy not going to waste. A nice notion you would say, but boy, it sure cut my heating cost a full 70 percent, and not very expensive, compared to MF.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Winston Adams
    - June 25, 2012 at 22:37:54

    John- The best thing I like about all your arguments is that Muskrat Falls is a relatively clean energy source. But I am not sold on most of your other arguments. You say conservation is a nice notion but it will never be an answer to our future needs. I prefer to use the word efficiency rather than conservation. Conservation has some negative conotations - like cutting back on heat and being cold. Efficiency means more heat at less cost - a win win when its cost effective, and it is much more cost effective than MF.Now one of the problems with Manitoba Hydro is they went along with Nalcor - that reduction in electricity use from energy efficiency methods for residential heating has reached the saturation point. This is false. Surely you realize that our heating methods wastes more than half of our electricity for heating. So why would Nalcor and Manitoba Hydro make that false statement? I mean, I'm talking current heating technology being used worldwide- are they not aware of it? Where's there world class assessment on this? For heating and hot water we're talking a 600 Mw of waste. Saving some of that looks after our future needs for how long? And it saves a lot of money for the consumer by lower usage and therefore lower power bills. The problem with Nalcor and Man. Hydro may be that they are short on expertise on heating systems- would you think that is possible?

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Maggy Carter
    - June 25, 2012 at 16:36:40

    NALCOR (aka John Smith) continues to foster the great lie - that the supply of electricity to the island is about to run out. No matter how often or how thoroughly that lie is refuted by people - using NALCOR's own numbers at that - the lie is repeated over and over again. Why do NALCOR, Dunderdale and Kennedy persist in the lie? Because they recognize that a looming crisis in our energy supply is a necessary if insufficient justification for a massive public investment to address it.. If they cannot sell at least that argument to the public, then of course they have no hope whatsoever of persuading us that Muskrat is the most cost effective option available. The columns by Dr. Collins, Maurice Adams and Cabot Martin (the latter two in Saturday's print version of the Telegram) have again raised a number of fundamental problems with this project. When Williams announced it on his way out the door a couple of years ago, I (like many other Newfoundlanders) was cautiously optimistic that NALCOR and government had found a formula that worked - that made sense for all of us as ratepayers, taxpayers and essentially as investors. And, of course, I took almost for granted that the need for it was clearly established. As the facts began to emerge - those NALCOR was prepared to share with us - it became abundantly clear that something was serious wrong. The project economics were abysmal - failing to meet even the most basic test of feasibility. When pressed on the alternatives, NALCOR strained itself to argue that Muskrat was better than the only other option it looked at - the mix of on-island hydroelectric and thermal solutions. Indeed NALCOR and government persisted in their use of the adjective 'best', which of course grammatically and logically would imply that more than two options considered. As Mr. Adams so cogently states it in his weekend article, Muskrat not only does not constitute a 'long-term vision for sustainable, renewable energy production' for the province as claimed by NALCOR, it actually flies in the face of a much more cost effective solution that includes the patriation of power from Churchill Falls. Cabot Martin very effectively underscores the huge, unnecessary financial risks to the provincial treasury that would arise from the development of Muskrat. Using even the flawed numbers supplied by NALCOR, MHI demonstrated just how sensitive Muskrat was alternatively to a reduction in oil prices over time and to an increase in capital costs. The ink on that report is barely dry and already we are seeing changes in both of these assumptions which demonstrate - in Martin's words - that 'Muskrat is a dog'. Indeed as taxpayers we could put our money in a sock and get a better risk/return outcome than by investing in Muskrat. Martin and Collins have also acknowledged the other elephant in the room. Our provincial government has surreptitiously created a Heritage Fund by-any-other-name in which now sits some several billion dollars of royalties from the offshore. Rather than invite public input on how that fund should be spent, or simply letting it grow in value as a hedge against the day we might badly need it, the Dunderdale government has instead transferred it lock, stock and barrel to NALCOR - yes that same institution that it carefully and cleverly exempted from scrutiny by the PUB, the Auditor General and the general public (the latter which was already difficult and is now impossible thanks to Bill 29). As Martin points out, the use of LNG on the open market or gas from our own Grand Banks both offer better economics today and upside potential tomorrow than is reflected in the Muskrat proposal. The question I must ask again is this - what effort is underway now during this hiatus to ensure not only that the opposition parties are prepared to fight this Muskrat madness come Fall, but to make the general public aware of the enormous risks involved. Michaels and Ball (yes Ball - not McDonald) need to access every resource available to them to make sure this province - from a Churchill River perspective - does not shoot itself in the other foot.

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      Christopher Chafe
      - June 25, 2012 at 20:39:56

      Why shouldn't the future leader and premier of NL Dean McDonald not have say in Muskrat Falls......is it because he is against his own party? Surely you are not naive enough to think if it came down to Ball VS McDonald for the Liberal leadership that Ball would win. If Dwight Ball is all the Liberal Party has to go up against Kathy Dunderdale, looks like it will have been the Liberal party hand Dunderdale another majority and not the people of NL.

    • Username
      John Smith
      - June 25, 2012 at 20:47:04

      Well ...Maggy....you say the economics of muskrat are abysmal. What do you mean? You say Nalcor, the Premier, and Minister Kennedy are lying...that they are all liars. What do you mean?Both Navigant and MHI looked at the numbers, and they came back saying that Nalcor are grossly underestimating our future needs...so might as well call all those guys liars as well...right? Seems like the only ones who are not liars are Cabot Martin, who owns interest in a gas company(ironic...LOL), and a bunch of has been disgruntled ex backbenchers. Right...so let's discount all the credible people...call them liars etc. and instead, let's believe what Cabot Martin and Danny Dumaresque are saying??? Maggy my dear you are clueless.Do you have any idea what it would take to tie us to LNG or natural gas? I know you don't. Not only is it not feasible...but why would you want to be tied to a commodity that could go sky high, or be subject to any and all enviromental problems, when for the same money we could have the stability that comes from Hydro? We could pay into our own resource for power, instead of some goon in an office tower in Toronto. Anyway, you can't debate with the likes of you or Maurice because you live in your own lunatic fringe fantasy world, led by the nose by the cospiacy advocates like Cabot and Danny D. Thank God we will not have to listen to your mindless protestations much longer...saction day will be coming soon...I have the champange ready maggy...I'll take a sip thinking of you and maurice LMAO

  • Username
    John Smith
    - June 25, 2012 at 16:25:26

    We can't plan our future energy needs on whether or not a paper mill in CB stays open or not. That's what I said. Conservation is a nice notion, but it will never be an answer to our future needs. Right now the muskrat falls option is 2 billion better than the competition, Duff's upgrade, small hydro etc....so Muskrat would have to be 2 billion more expensive, and it would then be on a par with the other options. Even if it did come in 2 billion more expensive,( which it will not because all the alternatives also increase in cost), it would still be the best long term option. Our rates have gone up 60% since 1998, they will go up by 8 percent this month alone to pay for last years oil use. Time to get off oil, before it goes to 200 a barrel.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    winston Adams
    - June 25, 2012 at 15:07:56

    Last week John Smith said that if Corner Brook mill power consumption in winter was available for our winter domestic heating, that it would'nt make a "dent " in our energy needs. Strange- given that he often quotes the Manitoba Hydro experts- who said that the combination of 10 percent escalation in Muskrat fallls power plus the Corner Brook mill power becoming available for other use,that this would cancel the 2 billion dollar advantage the MF project now shows. The 10 percent increase is assured, due to costs for reliability issues noted by Manitoba Hydro. So the CB mill power, even for winter time use, this can trigger the cancellation of 2 billion least cost advantage of MF.Some dent!. And not considered is the potential 600 MW of currently wasted electricity due to outdated inefficient electric heating systems we use. We need to ulilize only part of this to make MF unnecessary for the island for decades. And this can be done at about one fifth the cost of new generation supply. And it can keep electricity costs stable - there being no need for the large price increases planned. Much of the USA are keeping electricity costs stable- and wholesale prices there actually dropped last year. Why can't we learn a few lessons from them. Nalcor and our government needs to take their blinkers off.

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      David
      - June 25, 2012 at 18:34:57

      John Smith is a political toadie, and an eejot. Reading enough of his posts will make you stupid.

  • Username
    Maurice E. Adams
    - June 25, 2012 at 13:42:15

    Muskrat Falls or no, Nalcor plans to install an additional 50 mw of thermal generation by 2014 which will put our EXISTING installed NET capacity up to 2008 MW ---- while our "peak demand" in 2011 was 1,544 MW (down another 0.9% BELOW our 10 average of 1,558MW)..... That leaves almost 500 MW UNUSED ---- while the only demand on the horizon is from VALE --- about 80 MW (when it eventually operates at peak)..... see website www.vision2041.com. ------- There is no energy increase. ------ Kennedy recently said in the House that Holyrood operates at capacity in winter ----- see Nalcor's (Ed Martin's) leadership blog where he confirms that Holyrood did operate at all at capacity in 2011. ;;;;;;;; Where is the energy need? Labrador mines can get all the power they need over the fence from Quebecc for about 3-4 / KWh, while it will cost island ratepayers about 30-40 cents / KWh to provide them with Muskrat power ---- while they will only pay 3-4 cents ----- great investment for island ratepayers .....

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    John Smith
    - June 25, 2012 at 10:12:47

    The Muskrat Falls development is being proposed as a way to meet a power deficit which will be upon us in as little as 5 years. By 2020 we will be in a dire circumstance here in terms of power demand. This guy thinks we sholud have high speed rail, and a tunnel across the gulf (both which would cost more than the muskrat development) beore we develop the power we need right now?Why not develop a subway system for st. john's and a bridge to bell island. These proposals are getting whackier every day...

    Submit a comment

Submit a comment

Submit a comment (we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts
loading...

Tely Twitter

Advertising