Comments:
04 May 2014
This project got to be stop to save newfoundland and my grand children a burden , so a few people can make millions and a few get a short time employment.
Solar,wind,tidal and or just upgrade the 10 hydroelectric dams we already have or just reduce our demand by better construction
this is crazy,crazy,crazy.....
Clayton B
03 November 2013
Have just read the comprehensive report on the North Spur. While I am no geotechnologist, I did spend a couple of summers swimming in the Churchill river near Happy Valley-Goose Bay (1981-'82). The constantly moving sand and sand banks in the river became so disorienting to a swimmer that eventually I avoided going in the water altogether. One who swims in nature memorizes the shoreline, depth of water, sand bars, etc. But from one summer to the next, the Churchill river dramatically altered. The shifting sands (caused by the strength of tides) changed the topography of my favourite beach so much that I became uncomfortable swimming there. This personal experience aids my understanding of the North Spur problem and the report you have published. I object to the Muskrat Falls Hydro project for many other reasons. But now I can relate my personal experience with this river and sandy region to the risk posed by the North Spur. Your report makes sense to me. Thank you for your terrific work.
Cathy White
03 December 2012
To solve a problem one must be innovative. I believe there are better options available and must be explored. Here is one:
There is no doubt, come 2041 there will be surplus power and Energy available to export and sell, Hydro quebec (HQ) is one potential customer. I wonder is it possible to negotiate with HQ where we get some power back now with future committment to return the same post 2041, kind of Energy barter.
This way we can have clean cheap energy by building the Transmission link resulting in billions $ saving and no burden on rate/tax payers.
Thanks
madan rana
21 November 2012
Maurice , no doubt power from Quebec at 5 cents and a fixed link makes more sense than MF. Your suggestion is that MF is much larger than our needs and therefore much more costly.
I feel that any power from Labrador including from Quebec is not near as cost effective as an isolated island option based on energy efficiency, plus about 100 Mw of additional wind( this amount recently oked by MHI and the 77 MW of island Hydro. The 151,000 residential conversion would cost 1.5 billion, financed by energy savings which also reduces residential yearly power bills by 30 percent. The wind cost 240 million and the small hydro 398 million according to MHI. So Nalcor capital costs would be 638 million instead of over 6 billion. These island resources seems sufficient to 2041. Once these most cost effective sources are used up we can then look at far away places, if need be. You have not seriouly looked at this approach. Why not do so? I feel at worse it can hold costs steady at present levels, but should decrease costs on yearly power bills. In my opinion no other alternative can offer that . This approach is being used in many other jurisdictions. We are already about 86 percent green energy and this can take us to the 98 percent level.
Winston Adams
15 November 2012
In my opinion, the proposed Muskrat Falls deal is worse than Upper Churchill Hydro Quebec deal. It is clear that for approx 20 years we nned extra Power source, until 2041 when Upper Churcill Power will be availabe. To meet demand for this relatively short period, either a NaturalGas based Fired Plant on lsland or Power purchase from HQ at Churchill Falls would save lot of money for the rate and Tax payers of Newfoundland.
MuskratFalls being developed for the wrong resons i.e " To show Quebec that Lower Churchill can be developed without Quebec participation" Not a good reaso in my opinion. Thanks
Madan Rana
14 November 2012
Would not power from Quebec Hydro at 5 cents cost us 20 cents or more delivered here? If the intent is to keep our energy and heating cost low, consider this:our domestic use is 69 percent heat, 11 percent hot water and 20 percent other uses. Efficient heating systems uses very little electricity, so our heat is the equivalent to 5.2 cents per kwh, and efficient hot water equivalent to 5.6 cents per kwh, and the balance at full 11.2 cents per kwh. All averaged based on percentage of each gives a power cost on our bills equivalent to 6.4 cents per kwh. There is no transmission cost for this. In fact the power company benefits from reduced tranmission losses of about 5 percent or 0.3 cents per kwh, if they gave that back our overall cost would be only 6.1 cents per kwh. But the efficient heating equipment to do this for a house costs about 2.5 cents per kwh when averaged over it's 20 year life. So that is still only less than 9 cents per kwh, a net saving over present costs of over 20 percent. So even if we got power from Quebec free, the transmission costs makes it more expensive than upgrading our heating systems. I've completed a engineering analysis applied to the islands power needs using efficiency, some little wind and small hydro. I'll send it if you wish to post the analysis. It is in comparison very low cost compared to MF. You might consider plotting a chart for power savings versus energy and demand needs for the next few decades. This latest technology has been around for over a decade and Hy dro is now planning a pilot test! Better they verify the hundreds already installed here and working good. By the time their test is complete there will be no turn back on MF.
Winston Adams
---
13 November 2012
The more this project moves along the more the agenda is controlled by the proponent Nalcor. So much for democracy.
Gabe Gregory
---
08 November 2012
As proposed we cannot afford the project. For instance: Just because i want a big home is not a sign of my ability to pay for it. If I cant make the first payments; why would the bank figure i can make the last payments 50+ years away.
So, why take on a debt that does not show that someone else is helping with the payments (an interest on loan guarantee is not enough).
Kevin Pritchett
---
06 November 2012
We certainly missed out revenue from the Upper Churchill but we did not put our children at risk like this Muskrat Falls deal. When my children finally retire from Lab West iron mines, they will certainly not come to the Island to retire, they will probably go to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick where there will be a stable power rate as well as money for other Government programs. Thank you -- Ray Norman
Ray Norman
---
05 November 2012
Congratulations on great work!
Randy Dawe
---
We can not have 16 people ( Cabinet) impose such a burden on over 500,000 without a "clear mandate" from the voters of Newfoudland and Labrador!!!
Fraser Piccott
---
03 November 2012
Opposition coments are not credible as the proponents of not proceeding all have their own vested interests.
On this Vision 2041 website there are inflamatory,hysterical and completely inaccurate remarks like "The Real Reason for Muskrat (a project for Labrador mining companies --- paid for, lock, stock and barrel by captive island ratepayers") Suggests / implies there will be no cost to potential Labrador mining companies for power? How is "Joe public" expected to take that or the rest of what is included as credible, rational, factual argument...And the Vision 2041 organizers are predominantly Lawyers?
Steve Sharp
For clarity's sake --- the 2041 Energy Inc. group (the group established by 5 lawyers) is not affiliated in any way with the establishment of this Vision 2041 website. I take full responsibility for the good, the bad and the ugly. Maurice E. Adams, Paradise, NL (ratepayer)
---
01 November 2012
Renewable, environmentally freindly energy is the way to go for our children and grandchildren. Energy costs will increase no matter what.
I grew up poor in the lower valley (Happy Valley), and know what it is like to struggle to get by. Lower Churchill has been on the development table since Joey and the Liberal Government Sold Labrador to Quebec, and I truly do not care which party is able to push forward, and long as we move on it. I'm also offended as a person from Labrador that this site, dedicated to the discuss Lower Churchill uses representations of the "republic of Newffoundland" flag, as Labrador, it's people, and power has never show alligience to any "Republic".
John J
---
31 October 2012
Shale Gas has killed the prospect of long term US contracts, at least for now. Selling on the spot market sounds like a gamble to me, especially for a project that has very limited storage capacity, given that at the end of the day the flow is dictated by the contractual obligations of the Upper Churchill. If it turns out that we are unable sell all the power we cannot use for our own needs on the spot market, our domestic rates will have to pay for the shortfall. In that case, why not brings our own well-established reserves of gas onshore, for both power generation and home heating?
Adrian Tanner
---
30 October 2012
You should have a facebook page. It is much easier to spread news.
Kathleen Burt
---
29 October 2012
Thank you for all your work on this site! It's absolutely on the mark!
Roberta Frampton Benefiel
---
Absolutely great presentataion, really good to see. Ratepayers need to speak up as well as taxpayers. This is a flawed project. Not economical, not compeditive, environmentally destructive, Curlturally insensitive, and never should this Project be a legacy for anyone. It makes no sense-cents.
James G. Learning
---
I think there are a lot of other areas of Newfoundland and Labrador where this kind of money can be distributed and executed in a way to help communities..
There are not enough activities available for kids and teenagers anymore without it costing a fortune for the parents.. you have to wonder why
There are so many troubled teens involved with drugs, violence, and alcohol abuse.. these young adults need community outreach program to teach them
Skills to be successful and give back not to mention raise awareness of the long term effects of substance abuse.. these young adults are the
future of our province.. they are a priority..
Then there's the aging community.. what is avaliable to aid them in day to day life? Transportation to and from their doctors, grocery stores
or just getting out for the day.. meals, help with the cost of medication.. etc,,,
Then there's all the damn potholes... come on... ha ha...
I think that people are more important at this point than developing something that is only going to cost the province alot more money
In the long run...
That's just a little bit of my opinion ...
Way to go .... for having such a strong voice in what you believe in...
Connie Noseworthy
---
27 October 2012
I have concluded my analysis of the potantial for energy efficiency to reduce island demand and to offset Holyrood oil consumption. Efficient electric heat for the domestic sector alone offsets twice the Holyrood production for the year 2011. Efficiency applied to all domestic and commercial sectors has the potential to offset 4 times Holyrood's yearly production. Efficiency, properly applied, will REDUCE home and business electricity bills due to less electricity required. A more detailed commentary will be published soon in the Telegram under "bringing Efficiency to the Energy Equation' part 2. Perhaps this site can include it in the Letters section?
Winston Adams
---
Time to take back democracy in thiw PROVINCE AND IN THIE COUNTRY!
Roberta Frampton Benefiel
---
25 October 2012
Keep up the good work
P. Stamp
---
24 October 2012
There has to be a way to stop this horrible project.
Maureen Battcock
---
23 October 2012
Any power over what we need from MF is a tax grab.
Gerry Goodman
---
Keep up the good work!
Bruno Marcocchio
---
I am wary of a referendum right now because the masses, those on the Northeast Avalon, whose votes will carry the day, are so sucked up in Danny Williams, his million and his charming facade, that we could end up going down the wrong path. The path that leads to Muskrat Falls.
Past experience has shown that Danny only goes public when he/his desires are threatened. Hence, his announcement last week that he would speak, and this week his address to the St. John's Board of Trade on Oct 22.
Danny/Kathy on Muskrat Falls
The inconsistencies, alone, that we observe practically every day coming from government should make us pause and question the wisdom of the Muskrat Falls project. Ed Martin said it and yesterday Danny said it. "Muskrat Falls is the 'least cost option' for the province. When Danny's own consultant group (BMT Fleet Technology) reported back to government that the Long Island Causeway was the 'least cost option' Danny and his cabinet ignored that and went with the greatest cost option for the taxpayers of this province and built a $38 million ferry. Danny had several, of what I call his, 'issy fits' over the causeway issue and if everyone don't agree with him now, on his desire for Muskrat Falls stay tuned for another issy fit. (The building of the Long Island Causeway, the least cost option, instead of a new ferry, a big hole in the water that you throw your money into, is definitely a no brainer, which Danny and, presently, Dunderdale chooses to ignore.) If you want to be ta ken seriously, Danny and Kathy, be consistent in your decisions when spending the taxpayer's dollars
Barbara Colbourne
---
This project is being developed using industrial standard project management processes and protocols, by experienced and competent people. The rhetoric used to attempt to provide counter arguments is neither soundly developed or logic based.
Brian Walsh
---
22 October 2012
we need to choose what we feel is best for us.
Jim Noseworthy
---
Referendum
Sue KD
---
Playing politics with our electricity is disgusting, Maurice. Ensuring that our electricity prices get tied to oil prices so you can benefit politically is downright treasonous. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Tim Jamison
---
We need the info and then the right to choose what we feel is best.
Melissa O
---
Public needs more review by the PUB to air ALL alternatives and this made public so that the public can be better informed before any referendum. For example , scare tactics like "Power will be rationed" will influence voters to vote for MF. And the fact that customer energy efficiency programs can avoid MF and reduce homeowner monthly bills will not be made known, so lack of information will let voters vote for MF .
Winston Adams
---
It's interesting to note that there are people in favour of both Option 2 and Option 3, but thus far, none for Option 1. I suppose, following what KD and the puppets are saying, that means there are a lot more naysayers and fools in the province than we would have guessed. Because clearly, only those in favour of proceeding with this undertaking can see the benefit for NLers.
Yeah, right!!
We are, sadly, heading down that same road Joey took us down, but, even more sadly, this time with much more information and knowledge available, and with our provincial government as the driving force. There is no federal interference to appease Quebec, no argument to be made that we were outmanouvered by smarter politicians and lawyers...we are driving this bus ourselves (and obviously, I mean our government, not those of us opposed to it.)
We have to be the only place in the world that is gaining so little benefit from an offshore oil industry...and when I say little benefit, I mean the things that taxpayers actually see. Our "benefit" has been grossly distorted property values and the corresponding taxes. The other "benefit" has been this insane plan to push MF through at all costs. We have some extra cash now, so let's blow it on Kathy's monument to herself...God knows, she needs something to be remembered for. And let's face it, anyone who has watched any government project knows full well that whatever estimate is provided, will be low by at least 30-50%. Not a huge deal on a 100K repair somewhere, but on a project flirting with a 10 Billion pricetag, such additional costs will be disatrous.
How can we proceed on a project when we know we have no markets? Why are KD and the crew not interested in any other options, aside from the billions for MF? Why can wind power and smaller hydro plants work elsewhere, but not in NL? I see seniors and lower income NLers having to sell their homes, and move elsewhere. Kathy's legacy will be to ruin lives in this province. This is being done to cater to mining interests, end of story!! It's time for the staunch PC supporters to ask some questions. This can't be argued on partisan political lines...if it's such a great deal, come clean, give the info, honest, reliable info, not the political BS that's been spouted in the past year. We are going to be burdened with this for many years, so we at least have a right to be informed.
MHI has had close to a 100% overrun on the projected cost of their own hydro development. Why would this be the chosen expert KD and the puppets turn to? I would think staying as far away form them as possible would be more prudent.
Jeff
---
21 October 2012
"North America's future production of electricty, and use of oil enerny in general, will change significently from the way it is at present in the course of the next 5 years. America will be hydro carbon independent from Asian as their own feilds of natural gas, and oil, are brought on stream.
The auto industries and the country have already started the the transition to the use of this cleaner, and much cheaper (a third of the present cost of energy) fourm of energy consumption. In light of the fact that North America uses ~ 75% of the worlds energy , it can be understood why the price of a bbl of oil is predicted to be stable over the next 10 years settling in the $85-$95 dollar range.
The PUB have not been allowed to do the assessment on the cost option of electricty from gas, our own or even imported gas and for that matter the other fourms of clean energy in combination that the rest of America is now increasing.
How does the government respond to these types of concerns? Instead of investigating these prudient remarks and others like them, they brand them, and us, as nay sayers who want to manage the decline of our future. The truth is that it is our government who is reckless, as they are doing everything in their power to venture into a mega billion expense, with no external out side sales for profits, which will therefore have to be payed for by ordinary citizens and next 3-4 generations of our childred. I dont have the words to describe the mentality of those in government who are attempting to build this project, without having investigated all options and all variables that the future willbring."
p earle
04 May 2014
This project got to be stop to save newfoundland and my grand children a burden , so a few people can make millions and a few get a short time employment.
Solar,wind,tidal and or just upgrade the 10 hydroelectric dams we already have or just reduce our demand by better construction
this is crazy,crazy,crazy.....
Clayton B
03 November 2013
Have just read the comprehensive report on the North Spur. While I am no geotechnologist, I did spend a couple of summers swimming in the Churchill river near Happy Valley-Goose Bay (1981-'82). The constantly moving sand and sand banks in the river became so disorienting to a swimmer that eventually I avoided going in the water altogether. One who swims in nature memorizes the shoreline, depth of water, sand bars, etc. But from one summer to the next, the Churchill river dramatically altered. The shifting sands (caused by the strength of tides) changed the topography of my favourite beach so much that I became uncomfortable swimming there. This personal experience aids my understanding of the North Spur problem and the report you have published. I object to the Muskrat Falls Hydro project for many other reasons. But now I can relate my personal experience with this river and sandy region to the risk posed by the North Spur. Your report makes sense to me. Thank you for your terrific work.
Cathy White
03 December 2012
To solve a problem one must be innovative. I believe there are better options available and must be explored. Here is one:
There is no doubt, come 2041 there will be surplus power and Energy available to export and sell, Hydro quebec (HQ) is one potential customer. I wonder is it possible to negotiate with HQ where we get some power back now with future committment to return the same post 2041, kind of Energy barter.
This way we can have clean cheap energy by building the Transmission link resulting in billions $ saving and no burden on rate/tax payers.
Thanks
madan rana
21 November 2012
Maurice , no doubt power from Quebec at 5 cents and a fixed link makes more sense than MF. Your suggestion is that MF is much larger than our needs and therefore much more costly.
I feel that any power from Labrador including from Quebec is not near as cost effective as an isolated island option based on energy efficiency, plus about 100 Mw of additional wind( this amount recently oked by MHI and the 77 MW of island Hydro. The 151,000 residential conversion would cost 1.5 billion, financed by energy savings which also reduces residential yearly power bills by 30 percent. The wind cost 240 million and the small hydro 398 million according to MHI. So Nalcor capital costs would be 638 million instead of over 6 billion. These island resources seems sufficient to 2041. Once these most cost effective sources are used up we can then look at far away places, if need be. You have not seriouly looked at this approach. Why not do so? I feel at worse it can hold costs steady at present levels, but should decrease costs on yearly power bills. In my opinion no other alternative can offer that . This approach is being used in many other jurisdictions. We are already about 86 percent green energy and this can take us to the 98 percent level.
Winston Adams
15 November 2012
In my opinion, the proposed Muskrat Falls deal is worse than Upper Churchill Hydro Quebec deal. It is clear that for approx 20 years we nned extra Power source, until 2041 when Upper Churcill Power will be availabe. To meet demand for this relatively short period, either a NaturalGas based Fired Plant on lsland or Power purchase from HQ at Churchill Falls would save lot of money for the rate and Tax payers of Newfoundland.
MuskratFalls being developed for the wrong resons i.e " To show Quebec that Lower Churchill can be developed without Quebec participation" Not a good reaso in my opinion. Thanks
Madan Rana
14 November 2012
Would not power from Quebec Hydro at 5 cents cost us 20 cents or more delivered here? If the intent is to keep our energy and heating cost low, consider this:our domestic use is 69 percent heat, 11 percent hot water and 20 percent other uses. Efficient heating systems uses very little electricity, so our heat is the equivalent to 5.2 cents per kwh, and efficient hot water equivalent to 5.6 cents per kwh, and the balance at full 11.2 cents per kwh. All averaged based on percentage of each gives a power cost on our bills equivalent to 6.4 cents per kwh. There is no transmission cost for this. In fact the power company benefits from reduced tranmission losses of about 5 percent or 0.3 cents per kwh, if they gave that back our overall cost would be only 6.1 cents per kwh. But the efficient heating equipment to do this for a house costs about 2.5 cents per kwh when averaged over it's 20 year life. So that is still only less than 9 cents per kwh, a net saving over present costs of over 20 percent. So even if we got power from Quebec free, the transmission costs makes it more expensive than upgrading our heating systems. I've completed a engineering analysis applied to the islands power needs using efficiency, some little wind and small hydro. I'll send it if you wish to post the analysis. It is in comparison very low cost compared to MF. You might consider plotting a chart for power savings versus energy and demand needs for the next few decades. This latest technology has been around for over a decade and Hy dro is now planning a pilot test! Better they verify the hundreds already installed here and working good. By the time their test is complete there will be no turn back on MF.
Winston Adams
---
13 November 2012
The more this project moves along the more the agenda is controlled by the proponent Nalcor. So much for democracy.
Gabe Gregory
---
08 November 2012
As proposed we cannot afford the project. For instance: Just because i want a big home is not a sign of my ability to pay for it. If I cant make the first payments; why would the bank figure i can make the last payments 50+ years away.
So, why take on a debt that does not show that someone else is helping with the payments (an interest on loan guarantee is not enough).
Kevin Pritchett
---
06 November 2012
We certainly missed out revenue from the Upper Churchill but we did not put our children at risk like this Muskrat Falls deal. When my children finally retire from Lab West iron mines, they will certainly not come to the Island to retire, they will probably go to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick where there will be a stable power rate as well as money for other Government programs. Thank you -- Ray Norman
Ray Norman
---
05 November 2012
Congratulations on great work!
Randy Dawe
---
We can not have 16 people ( Cabinet) impose such a burden on over 500,000 without a "clear mandate" from the voters of Newfoudland and Labrador!!!
Fraser Piccott
---
03 November 2012
Opposition coments are not credible as the proponents of not proceeding all have their own vested interests.
On this Vision 2041 website there are inflamatory,hysterical and completely inaccurate remarks like "The Real Reason for Muskrat (a project for Labrador mining companies --- paid for, lock, stock and barrel by captive island ratepayers") Suggests / implies there will be no cost to potential Labrador mining companies for power? How is "Joe public" expected to take that or the rest of what is included as credible, rational, factual argument...And the Vision 2041 organizers are predominantly Lawyers?
Steve Sharp
For clarity's sake --- the 2041 Energy Inc. group (the group established by 5 lawyers) is not affiliated in any way with the establishment of this Vision 2041 website. I take full responsibility for the good, the bad and the ugly. Maurice E. Adams, Paradise, NL (ratepayer)
---
01 November 2012
Renewable, environmentally freindly energy is the way to go for our children and grandchildren. Energy costs will increase no matter what.
I grew up poor in the lower valley (Happy Valley), and know what it is like to struggle to get by. Lower Churchill has been on the development table since Joey and the Liberal Government Sold Labrador to Quebec, and I truly do not care which party is able to push forward, and long as we move on it. I'm also offended as a person from Labrador that this site, dedicated to the discuss Lower Churchill uses representations of the "republic of Newffoundland" flag, as Labrador, it's people, and power has never show alligience to any "Republic".
John J
---
31 October 2012
Shale Gas has killed the prospect of long term US contracts, at least for now. Selling on the spot market sounds like a gamble to me, especially for a project that has very limited storage capacity, given that at the end of the day the flow is dictated by the contractual obligations of the Upper Churchill. If it turns out that we are unable sell all the power we cannot use for our own needs on the spot market, our domestic rates will have to pay for the shortfall. In that case, why not brings our own well-established reserves of gas onshore, for both power generation and home heating?
Adrian Tanner
---
30 October 2012
You should have a facebook page. It is much easier to spread news.
Kathleen Burt
---
29 October 2012
Thank you for all your work on this site! It's absolutely on the mark!
Roberta Frampton Benefiel
---
Absolutely great presentataion, really good to see. Ratepayers need to speak up as well as taxpayers. This is a flawed project. Not economical, not compeditive, environmentally destructive, Curlturally insensitive, and never should this Project be a legacy for anyone. It makes no sense-cents.
James G. Learning
---
I think there are a lot of other areas of Newfoundland and Labrador where this kind of money can be distributed and executed in a way to help communities..
There are not enough activities available for kids and teenagers anymore without it costing a fortune for the parents.. you have to wonder why
There are so many troubled teens involved with drugs, violence, and alcohol abuse.. these young adults need community outreach program to teach them
Skills to be successful and give back not to mention raise awareness of the long term effects of substance abuse.. these young adults are the
future of our province.. they are a priority..
Then there's the aging community.. what is avaliable to aid them in day to day life? Transportation to and from their doctors, grocery stores
or just getting out for the day.. meals, help with the cost of medication.. etc,,,
Then there's all the damn potholes... come on... ha ha...
I think that people are more important at this point than developing something that is only going to cost the province alot more money
In the long run...
That's just a little bit of my opinion ...
Way to go .... for having such a strong voice in what you believe in...
Connie Noseworthy
---
27 October 2012
I have concluded my analysis of the potantial for energy efficiency to reduce island demand and to offset Holyrood oil consumption. Efficient electric heat for the domestic sector alone offsets twice the Holyrood production for the year 2011. Efficiency applied to all domestic and commercial sectors has the potential to offset 4 times Holyrood's yearly production. Efficiency, properly applied, will REDUCE home and business electricity bills due to less electricity required. A more detailed commentary will be published soon in the Telegram under "bringing Efficiency to the Energy Equation' part 2. Perhaps this site can include it in the Letters section?
Winston Adams
---
Time to take back democracy in thiw PROVINCE AND IN THIE COUNTRY!
Roberta Frampton Benefiel
---
25 October 2012
Keep up the good work
P. Stamp
---
24 October 2012
There has to be a way to stop this horrible project.
Maureen Battcock
---
23 October 2012
Any power over what we need from MF is a tax grab.
Gerry Goodman
---
Keep up the good work!
Bruno Marcocchio
---
I am wary of a referendum right now because the masses, those on the Northeast Avalon, whose votes will carry the day, are so sucked up in Danny Williams, his million and his charming facade, that we could end up going down the wrong path. The path that leads to Muskrat Falls.
Past experience has shown that Danny only goes public when he/his desires are threatened. Hence, his announcement last week that he would speak, and this week his address to the St. John's Board of Trade on Oct 22.
Danny/Kathy on Muskrat Falls
The inconsistencies, alone, that we observe practically every day coming from government should make us pause and question the wisdom of the Muskrat Falls project. Ed Martin said it and yesterday Danny said it. "Muskrat Falls is the 'least cost option' for the province. When Danny's own consultant group (BMT Fleet Technology) reported back to government that the Long Island Causeway was the 'least cost option' Danny and his cabinet ignored that and went with the greatest cost option for the taxpayers of this province and built a $38 million ferry. Danny had several, of what I call his, 'issy fits' over the causeway issue and if everyone don't agree with him now, on his desire for Muskrat Falls stay tuned for another issy fit. (The building of the Long Island Causeway, the least cost option, instead of a new ferry, a big hole in the water that you throw your money into, is definitely a no brainer, which Danny and, presently, Dunderdale chooses to ignore.) If you want to be ta ken seriously, Danny and Kathy, be consistent in your decisions when spending the taxpayer's dollars
Barbara Colbourne
---
This project is being developed using industrial standard project management processes and protocols, by experienced and competent people. The rhetoric used to attempt to provide counter arguments is neither soundly developed or logic based.
Brian Walsh
---
22 October 2012
we need to choose what we feel is best for us.
Jim Noseworthy
---
Referendum
Sue KD
---
Playing politics with our electricity is disgusting, Maurice. Ensuring that our electricity prices get tied to oil prices so you can benefit politically is downright treasonous. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Tim Jamison
---
We need the info and then the right to choose what we feel is best.
Melissa O
---
Public needs more review by the PUB to air ALL alternatives and this made public so that the public can be better informed before any referendum. For example , scare tactics like "Power will be rationed" will influence voters to vote for MF. And the fact that customer energy efficiency programs can avoid MF and reduce homeowner monthly bills will not be made known, so lack of information will let voters vote for MF .
Winston Adams
---
It's interesting to note that there are people in favour of both Option 2 and Option 3, but thus far, none for Option 1. I suppose, following what KD and the puppets are saying, that means there are a lot more naysayers and fools in the province than we would have guessed. Because clearly, only those in favour of proceeding with this undertaking can see the benefit for NLers.
Yeah, right!!
We are, sadly, heading down that same road Joey took us down, but, even more sadly, this time with much more information and knowledge available, and with our provincial government as the driving force. There is no federal interference to appease Quebec, no argument to be made that we were outmanouvered by smarter politicians and lawyers...we are driving this bus ourselves (and obviously, I mean our government, not those of us opposed to it.)
We have to be the only place in the world that is gaining so little benefit from an offshore oil industry...and when I say little benefit, I mean the things that taxpayers actually see. Our "benefit" has been grossly distorted property values and the corresponding taxes. The other "benefit" has been this insane plan to push MF through at all costs. We have some extra cash now, so let's blow it on Kathy's monument to herself...God knows, she needs something to be remembered for. And let's face it, anyone who has watched any government project knows full well that whatever estimate is provided, will be low by at least 30-50%. Not a huge deal on a 100K repair somewhere, but on a project flirting with a 10 Billion pricetag, such additional costs will be disatrous.
How can we proceed on a project when we know we have no markets? Why are KD and the crew not interested in any other options, aside from the billions for MF? Why can wind power and smaller hydro plants work elsewhere, but not in NL? I see seniors and lower income NLers having to sell their homes, and move elsewhere. Kathy's legacy will be to ruin lives in this province. This is being done to cater to mining interests, end of story!! It's time for the staunch PC supporters to ask some questions. This can't be argued on partisan political lines...if it's such a great deal, come clean, give the info, honest, reliable info, not the political BS that's been spouted in the past year. We are going to be burdened with this for many years, so we at least have a right to be informed.
MHI has had close to a 100% overrun on the projected cost of their own hydro development. Why would this be the chosen expert KD and the puppets turn to? I would think staying as far away form them as possible would be more prudent.
Jeff
---
21 October 2012
"North America's future production of electricty, and use of oil enerny in general, will change significently from the way it is at present in the course of the next 5 years. America will be hydro carbon independent from Asian as their own feilds of natural gas, and oil, are brought on stream.
The auto industries and the country have already started the the transition to the use of this cleaner, and much cheaper (a third of the present cost of energy) fourm of energy consumption. In light of the fact that North America uses ~ 75% of the worlds energy , it can be understood why the price of a bbl of oil is predicted to be stable over the next 10 years settling in the $85-$95 dollar range.
The PUB have not been allowed to do the assessment on the cost option of electricty from gas, our own or even imported gas and for that matter the other fourms of clean energy in combination that the rest of America is now increasing.
How does the government respond to these types of concerns? Instead of investigating these prudient remarks and others like them, they brand them, and us, as nay sayers who want to manage the decline of our future. The truth is that it is our government who is reckless, as they are doing everything in their power to venture into a mega billion expense, with no external out side sales for profits, which will therefore have to be payed for by ordinary citizens and next 3-4 generations of our childred. I dont have the words to describe the mentality of those in government who are attempting to build this project, without having investigated all options and all variables that the future willbring."
p earle
