New leader, old ideas

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

I fail to understand provincial Liberal Leader Dwight Ball’s rationale for not supporting the Muskrat Falls project.

Ball says that we must have long-term power purchase agreements in the United States to make the Muskrat Falls project viable.

Why would we enter into long-term contracts for the sale of Muskrat Falls power when we could very well need that power for industrial development opportunities right here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

I had hoped that Ball would have been a more progressive leader. Instead, he appears to have that giveaway mentality that dominated governments in Newfoundland and Labrador for far too many years. Too much more of the same from that crowd.

Terry Murphy

St. John’s

Geographic location: Newfoundland and Labrador, United States

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • John Smith needs to give the opposing facts if there are, indeed, any.
    August 08, 2012 - 10:35

    For God's Sake John Smith Please Stop your childish bullying with no facts from the opposing side (your side), that the Muskrat Falls Project isn't going to put our province into bankruptcy. If you want to keep on ranting on this and other sites, yes, please give the opposing facts from your side to those of us who see the Muskrat Falls Project as a calamity waiting to happen, given the following facts we are aware of: (a) there are no customers awaiting for the energy who will pay what it will cost to produce the energy. (b) from what we are told about cost overruns, this Project could balloon our province's debt twice as high as it ever was in our province's history, (c) the fact that there are only 850 mega watts of energy, with 25 per cent of it being promised to Nova Scotia and talk of the proposed Mine developments in Labrador having to be satisfied with cheap energy, without little mention of Holyrood's needs being satisfied, the raison' d'etre for the development of the proposed Muskrat Falls Project in the first place. (d) And everyone, including you, John Smith, must be aware that our province has an above average aging population demographic in Canada, on fixed pension incomes, not indexed to inflation, so where will the extra income come from to to satisfy their electrical bills which are expected to have rate increases added to them annually on a compounded basis? Come on John Smith, please give us the opposing facts that will cancel out our side's fact to make this Muskrat Falls Project into a viable one.

  • Cyril Rogers
    August 07, 2012 - 10:48

    Terry, any Liberal with integrity is really questioning the health of the Liberal Party at this juncture. They certainly don't represent my perspective, but, the Liberals are not the only ones with old and tired ideas. Their current desperation for power is matched by the Tories' desperation to hang on to a failed legacy from Danny Williams. Sadly, where does one turn for good governance. The NDP is also waffling on issues like Muskrat Falls, despite all of the alarming evidence to the contrary. None of them seem to understand that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as the old saying goes. This project is rotten for many reasons and I am baffled by the lack of credible opposition from both the Liberals and the NDP.....both parties drifting bath and forth on key concerns and issues. This project is simply a BAD deal, dreamed up by Danny and NALCOR for reasons that have nothing to do with OUR best interests. We, the people, were so enamored of Williams that it didn't matter. If Danny said it was good....it was good! Time for us to wake and realize that Danny made more than his share of mistakes but had the oil money to cover it up. Terry, I want good governance, not a political messiah! How about you?

    • John Smith
      August 07, 2012 - 11:08

      Yes...no one understands except for you eh Cyril? You understand it all. Thank god we have the likes of you there to guide us through...LMAO

    • For real
      August 07, 2012 - 12:13

      If you really wanted "good governance" then the party shouldn't matter to you, but it does. You don't want good governance, you want Liberal governance.

    • Eli
      August 08, 2012 - 07:34

      Doesn't matter what side of the political fence you sit on. The USA is not , and never will be, interested in buying power for what we'd have to charge just to break even. Muskrat is a great project but it's just not worth the price. Can promoters get that thru their thick skulls?

  • John Smith
    August 07, 2012 - 08:25

    All Dwight Ball knows how to do is pander for votes. He thinks that he must oppose for the sake of opposing...I guess that's why the liberals under ball are at 10% in the polls less than the ndp. Long term sales of power are what got us in trouble with the UC...the last Liberal boondoggle...

  • Cold Future
    August 07, 2012 - 06:41

    Wecannot get long term contracts for Muskrat. The power is too expensive for mainlanders to pay. Therefore we must subiddize it. In other words pay 30 cents per kilowatt hour to build it and then sell it for 6 cents. The captive newfoundland consumer will have to pay dearly to make this project fly. It is hard to believe that any Newfoundlander, who does not see some personal gain from the construction or operation of this project, would support it. It is akin to cutting off your own nose to spite your face.The proponents of this project cannot make a rational business case to proceed without the take or pay contract which saddles the NL consumer with picking up the subsidy while those on the mainland take the power windfall gratefully.

    • Brian
      August 08, 2012 - 10:10

      Cold Future - Very well said, and I believe, quite accurate.

  • William Daniels
    August 07, 2012 - 06:31

    Don't worry Terry. Danny is doing everything to ensure this dud of a deal goes through.

    • Willie Dan
      August 07, 2012 - 07:47

      Still got that jealous hate on.