You will note the last sentence in this Canadian Press Story! I will highlight it.
They claim the Hydro Quebec has gained 1 billion in profit while Newfoundland has gained little.
Okay CP listen up...first that would be 1 billion "ANNUALLY", not the life of the contract. Second it is Newfoundland and Labrador last time I checked the Constitution.
Outside of those blunders look at the arrogance of Ontario wanting poor little welfare Newfoundland and Labrador to help them out of the crunch so they can squat us some more.
C'mon people wake-up.
Oh and the kicker look who CP says applied for the right to wheel power? NEWFOUNDLAND and LABRADOR POWER??????HUH hey boys and gals that would be Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
Newfoundland Hydro seeks approval for transmission of Lower Churchill power
| Canadian Press |
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
ST. JOHN'S, N.L. (CP) - Newfoundland and Labrador Power has applied to energy regulators for permission to transmit electricity into Ontario from the proposed Lower Churchill Falls development in Labrador.
The application to the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator was filed Monday.
"This request is part of Hydro's ongoing assessment of various market access options and key market destinations," Ed Martin, president of Newfoundland and Labrador Power said in a statement.
Martin said the utility is also exploring other potential markets, including the United States, the Maritimes and Quebec.
The application will help the company estimate the cost of connecting to Ontario, as well as identify any network upgrades that may be required in that province.
"Ontario is one obvious target market destination for Lower Churchill power as that province forecasts a capacity shortfall of 10,000 megawatts by 2025," said Martin.
Development of the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project was one of the topics discussed at a meeting between Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty last month in St. John's.
Faced with rising demand, Ontario has considered building new power generating stations over the next decade, including controversial new nuclear stations.
At the meeting, McGuinty said he's interested in developing clean sources of electricity.
In May, the Williams government decided to proceed with the long-anticipated, multi-billion dollar hydro development on Labrador's Lower Churchill River.
The notion of building more power plants on the river goes back to 1972, but has never been realized because of a combination of finances and politics.
The original Churchill Falls development has long been a sore point in Newfoundland.
Under that much-maligned deal, Hydro-Quebec has reaped nearly $1 billion in profit while Newfoundland has gained little.
22 comments:
To the best of my knowledge no one has demonstrated what gross or net profit Hydro Quebec actually makes from the power it purchases from CFLCo at greatly reduced prices.
The initial comments on the matter in the early 1980s suggested the total to that point was about $1.0 billion. Subsequently, this was transformed into an annual amount.
Other than the rumour/suspicion/vague feeling, no one has done the math.
Perhaps you'd be good enough to lay it out for us systematically and logically with references that can be checked.
That would have been correct or close to that date. My blog points out the inaccuracy of the CP report. Do you agree it is inaccurate?
As for the actual figures I recommend you read HQ reports for the past 25 years and do the math.
There are distinctions in the report which enable you to do that.
I do the math each and every year and keep an ongoing tab on investments made resulting from the initial windfall from the Upper Churchill.
This is also available, for the most part, online. I may have some histroic documents you may not have seen. You'll get to it.
You know the MW's and the average export and domestic sale price, you have the price from CFLco to HQ, you also have expenditures etc.
Let me know what your research tells you when you are finished.
If you have done the math and keep doing, would you publish the calculations so that the rest of us can see how you come up with the figures?
It seems a fairly straightforward request and since NO ONE has ever published the analysis to back up the claim, it would seem to me that the onus is on you - as a proponent of the billion plus a year argument - to demonstrate how you arrive at your figures.
What Ed said.
First Ed there is a question left on the table. Do you believe the CP is accurate?
Second I am not a proponent of a billion a year. In fact many years vary greatly. There is no onus on me to provide all the research you are looking for. If you wish to hire me, as you would Wade Locke or yourself I will provide it. Suffice to say that the analysis is readily available through Hydro Quebec documents.
The reference to the CP saying a billion in total is simply putting the more realistic amount of a billion annually of late. This year it will be much more.
I repeat, you should banter with Danny and the things you would like to see fixed, some of which we agree. Your inability to see this is the Premier's best shot.
Ditto to WJM
My god Ed it's like this you liked the leadership of Clyde Wells, I did not. You have your reasons and I have mine. Both are legitimate.
I appreciate some of the input you provide to public debate, sometimes I agree other times I do not.
For certain you have been talking about the WFF after the story published by the Independent first introduced it to the public.
You have also talked about the Council of the Federation which came directly from my blog posted 4 days prior to the story being raised and discussed in the news.
Likewise I have followed some of your information and gone on from there.
What is the real issue and let's deal with it before Sir Danny is installed for 15 years.
Ditto to WJM
I am under no obligation to back up your assertions.
Neither, for that matter, are you. But if someone asks you a hard question about the "billion a year" thing, you should be prepared to show your work.
That you are not, says something.
I have given you the direction you seek. That is to find qualified answers. The Hydro Quebec site and the publications. It is up to you to read or not. You answer and offer nothing. This is a form of entertainment for you and that's fine, but if you wish to challenge me you first mustg get to where I am. Then you and I can go over whatever you wish. It should take you no longer than 8-10 years. Meanwhile it would be equitable if you would post a blog and ideas so that we may address some of your thoughts.
And Ed open up your comments for fair discussion.
You answer and offer nothing.
Which is what YOU offer.
Please, Sue: show your work. Itemize the annual profit you allege Hydro-Quebec is making off Labrador hydro. It's your hypothesis; it's up to YOU to defend it if anyone questions it.
but if you wish to challenge me you first mustg get to where I am.
I am under no such obligation whatsoever.
Meanwhile it would be equitable if you would post a blog
Sue, a "blog" is not something you post. An individual posting is something you post to a blog. A given posting is not a "blog".
And Ed open up your comments for fair discussion.
Says the blogger who mass-deleted comments on her own blog not that long ago? Wow.
No it is not hypothesis, it is an educated understanding. It was confirmed for me by hydro quebec officials directly.
The work is available, you see your arrogance will not eliminate your ignorance only effort will. That is up to you.
I am comfortable with my understanding.
The mass-deletion of comments as you termed it was to prevent the behaviour of people who simply wish to harass not participate. You don't have the stomach to do it to Williams.
That's the difference between you and me.
The work is available,
Where?
I am comfortable with my understanding.
But not comfortable enough to post your reasoning and background materials.
The mass-deletion of comments as you termed it was to prevent the behaviour of people who simply wish to harass not participate. You don't have the stomach to do it to Williams.
To do what to Williams? He hasn't posted anything to my blog.
Actually, this has nothing to do with me asking someone to do research for me.
Rather, since you questioned the CP figure, you should be in a position to demonstrate what the figure is or the figures are from your own work to back up your own contention.
If I recall correctly in the Independent series some claims were made about the amount of money involved yet at no point was it ever explained how you or the paper arrived at the figures.
The only question that seems to be left hanging - since you took issue with the CP figures - is: "what is the accurate figure according to Sue?"
The most striking thing in this exchange is that when asked for a simple piece of information on which your argument in this post presumably was based, you balk and attempt to deflect to other irrelevent issues.
It is very difficult to have a discussion about major issues if you are unwilling to lay out your argument with enough detail to substantiate your claims and/or allow others to draw their own conclusions.
As for posting a blog, I have maintained one for about 18 months and provide links, calculations and whatever else it takes to demonstrate how I am arriving at major conclusions. This is eminently straightforward and if you wish to take issue with anything I have posted you have the space on your own blog to do it.
All I have done here is asked you to provide the calculations that give you a basis for claiming Hydro Quebec makes some exhorbitant figure from reselling Upper Churchill power. You might be right in your research, but until we know what the figures are and how you arrive at them, all we have are your unsubstantiated assertions.
If you want to put yourself in the same position as Wade Locke, then by all means go ahead; but appreciate that in his analysis and commentaries he provides the basic information so that his views can be thoroguhly assessed.
You are absolutely correct Wade provides his complete information and basis - after he is paid.
As for Hydro Quebec, I do not need to play games on that, not to complicated, have a look at the basic amounts on their returns, they vary greatly over the past 25 years. It is not an insignificant piece of work to break down the particular information you seek.
Ed I am satisfied based on 15 years of work on the subject, the data and information I use and my calculations along with that of various utilities and government agencies, that an average amount annually for Upper Churchill Power is within the range of 800 million to 1 billion annually. This year and in the year of the great central canadian blackout the amounts were greater than that.
Please review their financial statements. I am not going to re-hash them for myself and point to specific references over 25 years unless I am paid to do so or our great Premier tries to pull a fast one. If you remember the last bloke that tried that got the facts presented to him on a daily basis until he lost the battle and the people won. At least we still own company.
Ed you have heard the statement from 3 or 4 administrations that we cannot finance the Lower Churchill project, including the Premier you prefer, prove that comment.
I take it from your reply you are unable to provide even a single year's worth of information as an example of how you arrive at the figures.
Given that you provide a great deal of other comment for free, I find it odd that you would insist on being paid for something you have been supposedly researching for 15 years and which has been one of the main comments you have made over those 15 years repeatedly and publicly.
I have taken a look at the HQ figures and the NLH figures on many occasions.
One of the things I can't reconcile is how you contend that hydro power that represents - as Wally noted - about 14% of HQ's total generating capacity is responsible for generating something like a half to two thirds or more of HQ's profit.
If you'd care to look at some of my views on this, I'd refer you to this post from January 2005:
http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2005/01/struggling-against-reality.html
You can also take a gander at this one from May 2006:
http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2006/05/rubbish-tip-of-history.html
There's also this one on winter availability from March 2005:
http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2005/03/winter-availability.html
I have also taken issue with some of Mr. Crosbie's contentions on the whole Upper Churchill issue. One of the things I did in a post in July 2005 was note that Crosbie uses the figure of $800 million but as something he was told by some unnamed person.
I have already put plenty on the table on this subject. The least you could do is offer even the tiniest portion of the evidence you use to back your claims.
It's freaking laughable how these two get on, really.
No Hydro Quebec is losing money you buffons. And no I am not going to provide you with links to other PR's which state the obvious either so don't bother playing your mind games I won't respond.
Good work Sue. I've read in several books and articles where they concur with your stand on this.
Thanks ex-pat for resorting to name calling. Let's keep the conversation as high-level as possible.
Care to identify the books and articles?
Ed it's called harassment.
Why can't we commment on your blog?
What's your take on the worth of the Upper Chuchill to HQ?
Ed on the matter of what I provide, I provide opinion and fact based on my 15 years of energy study. The fact that I supply info for free when I wish is not an obligation on my behalf to provide at your request. You can pay for if you want that type of report.
As for proving the profit ratio's from the Upper Churchill versus other in stalled capacity, do the math.
With respect to Crosbie did you get him to provide the back-up or what?
Ed, what did Danny say when you told him?
Let's work on this theory.
Ed, you have not expressed much interest in a provincial Liberal leader since Clyde Wells. You are a follower of his ideology, management style, and choices.
Danny has surrounded himself with many of the same experts as Clyde did, ie Doug House. The only one missing is you? Do you consult with Danny? If not, are you a little upset that he has left you out?
They both moved Beth Marshall around too, right?
Do you support Gerry Reid?
We need to know where you are coming from.
It is rather curious that when asked to provide a simple piece of information on which much of your irk over hydro is based, you are completely unable to do it.
I don't think it is a matter of you choosing not to provide it; I think you are unable to do so. You merely have a piece of conventional wisdom, and assumption and that's all.
In an earlier comment here, I pointed you to several places on my own blog where I dealt with this issue of what Quebec makes from Upper Churchill power. If I am so wrong it should be easy to demonstrate how I made an error and what the correct interpretation would be.
Instead, your response is to raise a whole series of irrelevent and in some instances nonsensical issues. Ultimately you call it harrassment when I all I did was ask you to provide the analysis that supports your criticism of the CP story.
Your lack of substantive reply speaks volumes
No. I would be happy to respond as soon as you cut the cheque.
The issues you have a problem with they are legitimate based on your obsession with placing your picture and comments on the blog.
What I have said about Clyde is accurate as is my contention that your continued behaviorial issues are relative to Clyde's loss of the hydro debate.
If it is conventional wisdom it has been arrived at through exhaustive research where I can rely on my own study and not have to quote others on the subject.
Sometimes it is created by those around you. Try to create some through study and put out something original without quoting other experts.
Remember where yourinterest in WFF came from.
Stay tuned.
From the land of impetetrable meanings:
"Sometimes it is created by those around you." What does this mean in the context of your post? I am just trying to figure it out.
The issue I have a problem with is someone making a claim but being unable to back it up.
There is no question that Quebec Hydro buys Upper Churchill power for far less than current market rates, but that is a long stretch from claiming it actually makes - as Ryan Cleary claimed - $2.0 billion a year supposedly by reselling the power elsewhere.
All you have been asked to do is explain the basis for your criticism of the CP story and provide an accurate figure.
You have refused. You have also engaged in ad hominem attacks (suggesting I have "behavioural issues") and raised other irrelevent points.
That speaks volumes.
Post a Comment