I'm sure we can all agree on one thing - Hydro-Quebec does not give up a thing unless something greater of value is there for it.
In 1999 when CFLCo was threatened with going broke - our province sought ways to generate more revenue into the Corporation. This of course was another disastrous consequence of the Upper Churchill deal wherein under certain circumstances HQ could invest money in CFLCo in return for common shares.
It is of course arguable that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador could keep CFLCo afloat with tax dollars - thus avoiding a complete HQ takeover of the Upper Churchill - however Brian and Deano went for a "new" deal.
The Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract (GWAC) was born and with that "new" rights for Hydro-Quebec.
The way CFLCo functioned was a 2/3 (NL) 1/3 (HQ) ownership/management situation wherein we had majority shareholder rights. The new agreement changed that to requiring an approval from HQ on all important business/contract/management issues.
Let's get one thing clear - HQ did not have to accept GWAC - they had rights to power anyway and had them cheap. The GWAC gave us the better deal on the power sales at market value. Therefore it is certain that HQ got something out of the deal.
Despite HQ's winning protest and position that the Upper Churchill Contract could not be changed - leaving us the poor owners of an extremely lucrative resource; HQ got a change and it was definitely in their favour.
So what then was HQ after? Why did they "give" us a deal for power at market value?
Even the current government is out touting HQ as the devil - opposed to Newfoundland and Labrador. So in that case what did we give up in 1999?
Here's the wording in part;
Part of the Shareholders Agreement among NL Hydro, Hydro-Quebec, and CFLCo June 18th 1999
Article 3 Board of Directors
3.4 Special Majority Decisions of the Board of Directors
The
following decisions will require the approval of a majority of the
directors on the Board of Directors, including at least one director
nominated by NL Hydro and one director nominated by Hydro-Quebec on the
Board of Directors:
3.4.6
...the entering into, amendment or termination of any Material Contract to
which CFLCo or any Subsidiary of CFLCo is a party or to which CFLCo or
any Subsidiary of CFLCo may become a party, unless such entering into,
amendment or termination has been previously approved in a budget
approved under Section 3.4.2 or 3.4.3;
Material Contract defined: "Material Contract"
means (i) any contract involving a monetary commitment of CFLCo or
having a value to CFLCo of $10 million or more in the aggregate and (ii)
any contract which restricts CFLCo from carrying on its Business, including the contracts listed on Schedule E;
Business defined: "Business" means the business of CFLCo which shall be limited to the following purposes and objects:
(a) to produce or otherwise acquire and to transmit and to sell electricity;
(b)
to harness or otherwise make use of water for the purpose of producing
hydroelectric and hydraulic power and for any other purpose;
Our politicians need to all come clean. Why did HQ want the change above? - and now that they have it - what did they want it for?
Showing posts with label 2041. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2041. Show all posts
Friday, July 26, 2013
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
PIRA Projections? - Muskrat Nightmare?
The company that supplied Nalcor and the government of Newfoundland and Labrador with projected oil costs has a new focus:
PIRA Energy Group held a seminar that I hope our province attended - before sanctioning the debt elephant and the Muskrat Falls inferior development plan.
It's time for our politicians to stop ignoring or downplaying the shale play in North America. The price of oil - which our reports on Muskrat rely so heavily on - may be taking an absolute turn downward. If this were to happen then our estimates are dead wrong - our export ability is dead, our price for domestic power would be too high, and the debt carried by taxpayers and monies paid by ratepayers would be unacceptable.
This type of error would compare to our failure to recognize the value of hydro - as oil prices soared. Now the opposite may happen - and we need to fully examine this possibility. Just as our mistake in the late 60's has netted Quebec a windfall - this project has the same potential to make multimillionaires of a few while hanging an albatross around the neck of Newfoundland and Labrador for an equivalent number of generations.
Please Read HERE
How about the government show us the latest PIRA report to them on projected oil prices. Where is the new report?
Also please advise if the formula used for projections to determine price of oil for our Hebron equity is the same as that being used for Muskrat.
We need to do more than be force fed fuzzy commercials, dazzled with hotel announcements, and reassured by MHA's who clearly do not have all the information. We need to stop this deal now - have the works go to the Public Utilities Board - which in turn would have complete authority to call any and all witnesses, check the primary data and estimates of Nalcor, and review the energy marketplace for the next 30 years.
We need to be cognizant of the fact that the project estimates have increased by over a billion dollars - which the government says is because of improved engineering and infrastructure plans.
Let's take them at their word. Why were the plans deficient to begin with if we have the BEST experts doing them? If the people, opposition, and media did not complain loudly about the first MHI, Navigant, and Joint Panel Review findings - would the government have proceeded with less than acceptable infrastructure?
If the increased costs are largely due to improper costing - then how do we expect to achieve a 10% maximum on over-runs?
There may very well be a project that works for the Lower Churchill - a domestic project/s that could see partnership between energy intense secondary processing industries and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - where transmission costs and energy loss could be minimized by using the power in Labrador. This of course does not include "johnny come lately" panic for Muskrat power when the Emera deal for Nova Scotia power may be in jeopardy and the potential export sales non-existent. We need to start from scratch and determine what is the best project/s for the Lower Churchill resource and proceed from there.
The television commercials and media buy to sell us something we have no say in - is throwing money for roads, hospitals, schools, and health down the drain.
If the government really wants the people to support the project - then send it to the experts we pay to determine the real costs, risks, and options for domestic supply IF and when we may need it.
This project has all the potential of being a second Upper Churchill nightmare - wherein WE make a mistake again.
We keep hearing that could not happen because of all the experts we have. Well how did it happen with the Upper Churchill?
How did the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro experts get it wrong on privatization?
How did experts with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro make so many errors in predicting power shortages over the past 30 years?
If and when the Lower Churchill is developed business will make money on the construction, engineering, and management of the project. We cannot just do a project to make business happy now by filling their coffers with contracts - that we have no ability to pay without extreme hardship to our people.
While we are at it - have a look at the mess in Nova Scotia regarding this deal and potential partnership and ask yourself is Emera in this? Are we guaranteed that Emera is in this?
Please read Here and look at the comments from Nova Scotians.
We are not yet in a position to sanction this deal and the people must step up and force the government to retreat from this fiasco.
PIRA Energy Group held a seminar that I hope our province attended - before sanctioning the debt elephant and the Muskrat Falls inferior development plan.
It's time for our politicians to stop ignoring or downplaying the shale play in North America. The price of oil - which our reports on Muskrat rely so heavily on - may be taking an absolute turn downward. If this were to happen then our estimates are dead wrong - our export ability is dead, our price for domestic power would be too high, and the debt carried by taxpayers and monies paid by ratepayers would be unacceptable.
This type of error would compare to our failure to recognize the value of hydro - as oil prices soared. Now the opposite may happen - and we need to fully examine this possibility. Just as our mistake in the late 60's has netted Quebec a windfall - this project has the same potential to make multimillionaires of a few while hanging an albatross around the neck of Newfoundland and Labrador for an equivalent number of generations.
Please Read HERE
How about the government show us the latest PIRA report to them on projected oil prices. Where is the new report?
Also please advise if the formula used for projections to determine price of oil for our Hebron equity is the same as that being used for Muskrat.
We need to do more than be force fed fuzzy commercials, dazzled with hotel announcements, and reassured by MHA's who clearly do not have all the information. We need to stop this deal now - have the works go to the Public Utilities Board - which in turn would have complete authority to call any and all witnesses, check the primary data and estimates of Nalcor, and review the energy marketplace for the next 30 years.
We need to be cognizant of the fact that the project estimates have increased by over a billion dollars - which the government says is because of improved engineering and infrastructure plans.
Let's take them at their word. Why were the plans deficient to begin with if we have the BEST experts doing them? If the people, opposition, and media did not complain loudly about the first MHI, Navigant, and Joint Panel Review findings - would the government have proceeded with less than acceptable infrastructure?
If the increased costs are largely due to improper costing - then how do we expect to achieve a 10% maximum on over-runs?
There may very well be a project that works for the Lower Churchill - a domestic project/s that could see partnership between energy intense secondary processing industries and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - where transmission costs and energy loss could be minimized by using the power in Labrador. This of course does not include "johnny come lately" panic for Muskrat power when the Emera deal for Nova Scotia power may be in jeopardy and the potential export sales non-existent. We need to start from scratch and determine what is the best project/s for the Lower Churchill resource and proceed from there.
The television commercials and media buy to sell us something we have no say in - is throwing money for roads, hospitals, schools, and health down the drain.
If the government really wants the people to support the project - then send it to the experts we pay to determine the real costs, risks, and options for domestic supply IF and when we may need it.
This project has all the potential of being a second Upper Churchill nightmare - wherein WE make a mistake again.
We keep hearing that could not happen because of all the experts we have. Well how did it happen with the Upper Churchill?
How did the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro experts get it wrong on privatization?
How did experts with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro make so many errors in predicting power shortages over the past 30 years?
If and when the Lower Churchill is developed business will make money on the construction, engineering, and management of the project. We cannot just do a project to make business happy now by filling their coffers with contracts - that we have no ability to pay without extreme hardship to our people.
While we are at it - have a look at the mess in Nova Scotia regarding this deal and potential partnership and ask yourself is Emera in this? Are we guaranteed that Emera is in this?
Please read Here and look at the comments from Nova Scotians.
We are not yet in a position to sanction this deal and the people must step up and force the government to retreat from this fiasco.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Roger Grimes - For the Record
Former Premier Roger Grimes will join me on Talk with Sue tonight.
This will be a 90 minute program dedicated to the Muskrat Falls deal.
It will be an important conversation for a number of reasons:
1. As a former Premier - he is among a very few that can relate to the job that Premier Dunderdale has.
2. As the Premier who signed the Voisey's Bay deal he can relate to the listener - the comparison between that project and the current proposed Muskrat Falls deal, he can relate to the listener - the sanction processes used for such developments, he can relate to the listener - where potential conflicts may be, he can relate to the listener - former proposed deals on the Lower Churchill, he can relate to the listener - the balance that must be found between industrial development and the maximization of benefits to the people when developing natural resources, he can relate to the listener - his concerns regarding the proposed Muskrat deal based on his experiences as Premier, as a Cabinet Minister, and now as an ordinary citizen, taxpayer, and ratepayer, and he can relate to the listener his experiences with Hydro-Quebec and Quebec.
3. When he was Premier - Danny Williams was the Leader of the Opposition and demanded certain things in the House of Assembly relative to the Voisey's Bay deal - then Danny became Premier and since then Roger has been retired and is unable to directly participate in the upcoming House of Assembly debate. What would he demand if he were in the HOA now?
4. As Premier he was privy to many direct discussions and reports from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the state of power supply, the choices for new supply, the price of power both industrially and domestic, and the governance of Crown Corporations.
5. It will allow the listener to hear in totality the reasoning behind his concerns about this deal. It will not be interrupted by commercials or shortened based on time restrictions of other programs both talk-shows and news outlets.
This is the type of program that the new social media accommodates. It adds an additional democratic tool that people can avail of. It helps to offset the disproportionate time allotted to government spin paid for by our tax dollars.
More and more in the future we will see these types of programs and learn to use them for information, debate, and discourse. As our political system is now - with the apathy we suffer - we are going to need this medium.
To hear this program join me live tonight Press HERE
This will be a 90 minute program dedicated to the Muskrat Falls deal.
It will be an important conversation for a number of reasons:
1. As a former Premier - he is among a very few that can relate to the job that Premier Dunderdale has.
2. As the Premier who signed the Voisey's Bay deal he can relate to the listener - the comparison between that project and the current proposed Muskrat Falls deal, he can relate to the listener - the sanction processes used for such developments, he can relate to the listener - where potential conflicts may be, he can relate to the listener - former proposed deals on the Lower Churchill, he can relate to the listener - the balance that must be found between industrial development and the maximization of benefits to the people when developing natural resources, he can relate to the listener - his concerns regarding the proposed Muskrat deal based on his experiences as Premier, as a Cabinet Minister, and now as an ordinary citizen, taxpayer, and ratepayer, and he can relate to the listener his experiences with Hydro-Quebec and Quebec.
3. When he was Premier - Danny Williams was the Leader of the Opposition and demanded certain things in the House of Assembly relative to the Voisey's Bay deal - then Danny became Premier and since then Roger has been retired and is unable to directly participate in the upcoming House of Assembly debate. What would he demand if he were in the HOA now?
4. As Premier he was privy to many direct discussions and reports from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the state of power supply, the choices for new supply, the price of power both industrially and domestic, and the governance of Crown Corporations.
5. It will allow the listener to hear in totality the reasoning behind his concerns about this deal. It will not be interrupted by commercials or shortened based on time restrictions of other programs both talk-shows and news outlets.
This is the type of program that the new social media accommodates. It adds an additional democratic tool that people can avail of. It helps to offset the disproportionate time allotted to government spin paid for by our tax dollars.
More and more in the future we will see these types of programs and learn to use them for information, debate, and discourse. As our political system is now - with the apathy we suffer - we are going to need this medium.
To hear this program join me live tonight Press HERE
Motivate(ional) Questions for Dunderdale and Media
Funny to listen to talk a few talk show hosts, media, and politicians wonder aloud why the "opposers", "naysayers", "partisans", "conspiracy theorists", "armchair experts", and "idiots" are questioning the motives of those who support or comment positively on the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.
Well for months everybody who has opposed or questioned the deal has been called all the names above and asked what their motives are.
Okay - shoe is on the other foot.
1. Why would Ches Penney support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
2. Why would Cathy Bennett support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
3. Why would Dean MacDonald support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
4. Why would Peter Woodward support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
5. Why would John Steele support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
First of all none of the aforementioned or their like minded business colleagues are charged with ensuring that all of society benefits from the resource the people own. They are charged with making more and more profit not long-term benefits for ratepayers or future generations.
Second there is a distinct potential for them to make more money from this deal while asking you and I to pay for it.
Third - unlike average Joe or Josephine citizen - their investment activity is likely at higher levels and more diversified meaning that indirectly more money will flow to them and their families.
Fourth - if the worst happens and electricity rates go through the roof - each of them are likely more able to absorb the increases without changing lifestyle or having to choose between heat and food. Further the potential for direct personal/business gain from this proposed deal will outweigh their losses from an increased electric bill.
Fifth - It is most common for business to flock behind any industrial deal as has been evidenced globally and if the worst happens - governments are usually very receptive to bailouts for the elite of the business community.
The people who have publicly opposed the deal have been scrutinized completely right from whether they are or have been blue red or orange, may have interests in other energy potentials, or just plain naysayers.
Now that the "business" community has come out of the closet in support of this deal - perhaps they would like to share their investment holdings so we the public can examine their possible motives for such a position. Perhaps they can tell us if their companies are supporting the project or if it just a personal opinion.
Perhaps they could reveal if they have business interests in Nova Scotia.
Perhaps they could reveal if they or their corporate interests ever completed projects for government or ever received money from government.
We also might want to review information on political funding such as the example below.
In 2010 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,000.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,250.00 PC
In 2009 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,250.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,000.00 PC
In 2008 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 4,500.00 PC
In 2007 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 5,000.00 PC (G/E)
Or perhaps we need a more comprehensive look at what these people are involved in - that might make them support this project:
Dean Macdonald
Press Here or
Perhaps how the Danny Williams led government investment (untendered) money for Persona (Dean Macdonald) quickly became an enhancement for a Nova Scotian firm.
Press Here which quickly precipitated Press Here and then to Press Here
You see the deal is "good" may definitely be in the eye of a specific beholder. There is no equation that guarantees that when a particular business makes money from a deal = that society will also be better off. There is no guarantee that the people who own the resource (us) will benefit fairly and equitably because a corporation/s make/s money.
We have plenty of examples where corporations have done significantly well from our resources while we received less than equitable return.
Just so that we are clear - the information presented above does not even insinuate that the individuals are doing something wrong - what it does do is state categorically that what is good for them does not necessarily equate to what is good for you.
It does insinuate that government is not behaving in a manner that is expected from the people who employ them, elect them, and own the resource and is ignoring the genuine, educated, and entitled right of citizens to oppose, object, question, and protest any major public policy or resource development.
Extremism is not good in any society and at any level. It is not reasonable to expect 100% support from the people for any government policy, investment, and/or development - that would be extreme. Equally it is unreasonable for the Premier and government to ignore, condemn, or attempt to thwart all opposition to a particular development. This is extreme and the Premier and her government are guilty of it.
Make no mistake - when government policy is made regarding things like minimum wage hikes - the business community complains and is opposed to policy that might enhance the lives of many but reduce their own profitability. Business has no problem complaining and lobbying to lower taxation, reduce royalties, restrict injured workers benefits, and reduce government spending including a reduction in public servants and programs. It equally has no problem asking for investment dollars with minimum or no repayment of same. Business regularly asks to be exempt from secondary processing while having unfettered access to natural resources. All these things to maximize their own profitability - while knowing there are those who will not benefit as much or at all - if they are successful.
The question then becomes the role of government.
Dunderdale and team can trot out all the businesses they like to demonstrate support for the proposed Muskrat Falls deal but that is not the support they need for this project. They need the support of the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will be paying for the project. They need the support of the majority of ratepayers. They answer to and work for those who elect them. Businesses do not vote - people do.
The backup quarterback for Team Muskrat is another story. Danny Williams is another post coming soon. Is he now speaking as former Premier, the architect of the deal, a Director of a mining company, or an investor? The media should be certain to find out so that his commentaries on the project are placed in proper perspective.
Well for months everybody who has opposed or questioned the deal has been called all the names above and asked what their motives are.
Okay - shoe is on the other foot.
1. Why would Ches Penney support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
2. Why would Cathy Bennett support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
3. Why would Dean MacDonald support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
4. Why would Peter Woodward support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
5. Why would John Steele support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
First of all none of the aforementioned or their like minded business colleagues are charged with ensuring that all of society benefits from the resource the people own. They are charged with making more and more profit not long-term benefits for ratepayers or future generations.
Second there is a distinct potential for them to make more money from this deal while asking you and I to pay for it.
Third - unlike average Joe or Josephine citizen - their investment activity is likely at higher levels and more diversified meaning that indirectly more money will flow to them and their families.
Fourth - if the worst happens and electricity rates go through the roof - each of them are likely more able to absorb the increases without changing lifestyle or having to choose between heat and food. Further the potential for direct personal/business gain from this proposed deal will outweigh their losses from an increased electric bill.
Fifth - It is most common for business to flock behind any industrial deal as has been evidenced globally and if the worst happens - governments are usually very receptive to bailouts for the elite of the business community.
The people who have publicly opposed the deal have been scrutinized completely right from whether they are or have been blue red or orange, may have interests in other energy potentials, or just plain naysayers.
Now that the "business" community has come out of the closet in support of this deal - perhaps they would like to share their investment holdings so we the public can examine their possible motives for such a position. Perhaps they can tell us if their companies are supporting the project or if it just a personal opinion.
Perhaps they could reveal if they have business interests in Nova Scotia.
Perhaps they could reveal if they or their corporate interests ever completed projects for government or ever received money from government.
We also might want to review information on political funding such as the example below.
In 2010 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,000.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,250.00 PC
In 2009 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,250.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,000.00 PC
In 2008 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 4,500.00 PC
In 2007 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 5,000.00 PC (G/E)
Or perhaps we need a more comprehensive look at what these people are involved in - that might make them support this project:
Dean Macdonald
Press Here or
Perhaps how the Danny Williams led government investment (untendered) money for Persona (Dean Macdonald) quickly became an enhancement for a Nova Scotian firm.
Press Here which quickly precipitated Press Here and then to Press Here
You see the deal is "good" may definitely be in the eye of a specific beholder. There is no equation that guarantees that when a particular business makes money from a deal = that society will also be better off. There is no guarantee that the people who own the resource (us) will benefit fairly and equitably because a corporation/s make/s money.
We have plenty of examples where corporations have done significantly well from our resources while we received less than equitable return.
Just so that we are clear - the information presented above does not even insinuate that the individuals are doing something wrong - what it does do is state categorically that what is good for them does not necessarily equate to what is good for you.
It does insinuate that government is not behaving in a manner that is expected from the people who employ them, elect them, and own the resource and is ignoring the genuine, educated, and entitled right of citizens to oppose, object, question, and protest any major public policy or resource development.
Extremism is not good in any society and at any level. It is not reasonable to expect 100% support from the people for any government policy, investment, and/or development - that would be extreme. Equally it is unreasonable for the Premier and government to ignore, condemn, or attempt to thwart all opposition to a particular development. This is extreme and the Premier and her government are guilty of it.
Make no mistake - when government policy is made regarding things like minimum wage hikes - the business community complains and is opposed to policy that might enhance the lives of many but reduce their own profitability. Business has no problem complaining and lobbying to lower taxation, reduce royalties, restrict injured workers benefits, and reduce government spending including a reduction in public servants and programs. It equally has no problem asking for investment dollars with minimum or no repayment of same. Business regularly asks to be exempt from secondary processing while having unfettered access to natural resources. All these things to maximize their own profitability - while knowing there are those who will not benefit as much or at all - if they are successful.
The question then becomes the role of government.
Dunderdale and team can trot out all the businesses they like to demonstrate support for the proposed Muskrat Falls deal but that is not the support they need for this project. They need the support of the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will be paying for the project. They need the support of the majority of ratepayers. They answer to and work for those who elect them. Businesses do not vote - people do.
The backup quarterback for Team Muskrat is another story. Danny Williams is another post coming soon. Is he now speaking as former Premier, the architect of the deal, a Director of a mining company, or an investor? The media should be certain to find out so that his commentaries on the project are placed in proper perspective.
Monday, October 01, 2012
Dunderdale - Cochrane - Cashin - Bloggers "FEAR"
Democracy: new definition
A right of people to elect dictators.
The continual flow of apologists for government and media should bother us.
One blogger noted:
"For a guy who called the press conference pleading for openness and transparency, I find it peculiar for him to attack the medium through which such transparency could be taken advantage of by the public. As Paddy Daly noted, it was akin to biting the hand that feeds."
Here we go again speaking out must be highlighted by fear.
Biting the hand that feeds it?
What does this mean?
One cannot and must not criticise or question the media?
One cannot and must not criticise government?
Shut your mouth and you will be rewarded?
Shut your mouth or bad things will happen?
If one believes the media is being soft on the most significant resource deal of the century for our province - what should they do? If one believes that this is part of the reason the government is acting so arrogant while spending our money - what should they do?
The pedestals must fall - people - politicians and media alike must be placed with the people and for the people. This constant attack on citizens who buy papers, watch and listen to news and ultimately pay for things like the Emera deal must end.
Speaking freely and publicly should not achieve an outcome of punishment. What exactly are we living under?
Dunderdale and Harper are reason enough to question and criticise till one is exhausted - now we have the media suggesting they are above question.
Gate 1: return power to the people
Gate 2: chastise and punish all politicians who do not understand who they work for
Gate 3: start decrying the punishment mentality of both government and some media with respect to people expressing an opinion or belief.
Gate 4: understand that politicians and some media do an awful lot of power plays behind the scenes as they pass out their punishment.
Gate 5: stop all progress of the Emera deal until a referendum process is undertaken and complete.
If this is a democracy - the threats of retribution to citizens who speak out must stop.
Our history is filled with examples where neither elected representatives nor media have done due diligence and we have and continue to pay the price.
From the United Nations: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
When a citizen is discouraged from direct involvement through use of fear or intimidation - he/she does not live in a democracy.
It was only a short while ago that Premier Dunderdale stated that Tom Osborne did not do enough to build a relationship with her. For this reason and not for reason of competence or ability he did not make Cabinet?
Prime Minister Harper is a liar - straight up - yet the media does not only avoid the factual situation but also accepts his direction with respect to when he will answer questions and who he will answer in the media.
The race to the bottom is heating up and whether it's Cashin, Osborne, or any other soul who dares question, critique or oppose government or media - they are under threat of some sort of reprisal?
The same blogger mentioned earlier said the following:
"So why did Cashin put forth such a ridiculous claim? Well, it’s simple really. Cochrane asked him a question that made Cashin uncomfortable. In the press conference, Cochrane basically restated Premier Dunderdale’s position on not allowing expert witnesses in the House of Assembly for the special Muskrat Falls debate as they were going to follow the template set out in the Voisey’s Bay debate from years past. Cochrane probably knows full well all of the things that are wrong with Dunderdale’s assertion, but he clearly put it in front of Cashin for him to refute, if he could. THIS IS WHAT GOOD REPORTERS DO.
Cashin is right, comparing Voisey’s Bay to Muskrat Falls is like comparing apples and oranges. The fact that the premise for Cochrane’s question contained the assumption that it was okay to compare the two appeared to really piss him off. Cochrane premised a question with a notion that Cashin believes to be preposterous, as he appears to think it’s irresponsible to even suggest that Muskrat Falls is similar to Voisey’s Bay."
The question that comes to my mind is did David Cochrane question Dunderdale's premise in the same manner he asked Cashin to do?
Did he place before the Premier the facts of the Voisey's Bay debate and the factual differences between the two?
Did Cochrane drag out the factual assumptions of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro over the past 25 years ans ask Martin or Dunderdale to explain the errors?
Did Cochrane chase Premier Williams around after his resignation to find out what's up?
Oh there are so many questions that could and should be asked by Cochrane and I assume that Cashin along with many others are exasperated by the soft approach on Dunderdale while leaving the tougher more aggressive questioning to citizens voicing their concerns.
Why will we pay Emera for any part of delivering domestic power?
Why will we pay Emera to maintain any part of our pole infrastructure?
What is Emera's record in Nova Scotia or the Grand Bahamas?
Does former Premier Williams have any investments that could benefit from this deal?
Why are the ratepayers/taxpayers paying for this mess?
Developing any part of the Lower Churchill should equal thousands of long-term jobs in Labrador and should be paying a significant dividend to the ratepayers in order to keep prices lower not higher.
How about Cochrane does a straight comparison between this proposed deal with Emera and the two last attempted deals by Tobin and Grimes. Let's see the information. Let us - the citizens make a call based on REAL information.
How about the Quebec card? How about we have some answers on that. How about we ask if Quebec companies will benefit greatly from this deal? How about we establish a fact that Quebec could buy into Emera?
This deal and all its dirt must be exposed and then stopped.
The only people who are really being chastized, marginalized, scrutinized and punished regarding the Emera deal are citizens who are not being paid to either govern or report.
A right of people to elect dictators.
The continual flow of apologists for government and media should bother us.
One blogger noted:
"For a guy who called the press conference pleading for openness and transparency, I find it peculiar for him to attack the medium through which such transparency could be taken advantage of by the public. As Paddy Daly noted, it was akin to biting the hand that feeds."
Here we go again speaking out must be highlighted by fear.
Biting the hand that feeds it?
What does this mean?
One cannot and must not criticise or question the media?
One cannot and must not criticise government?
Shut your mouth and you will be rewarded?
Shut your mouth or bad things will happen?
If one believes the media is being soft on the most significant resource deal of the century for our province - what should they do? If one believes that this is part of the reason the government is acting so arrogant while spending our money - what should they do?
The pedestals must fall - people - politicians and media alike must be placed with the people and for the people. This constant attack on citizens who buy papers, watch and listen to news and ultimately pay for things like the Emera deal must end.
Speaking freely and publicly should not achieve an outcome of punishment. What exactly are we living under?
Dunderdale and Harper are reason enough to question and criticise till one is exhausted - now we have the media suggesting they are above question.
Gate 1: return power to the people
Gate 2: chastise and punish all politicians who do not understand who they work for
Gate 3: start decrying the punishment mentality of both government and some media with respect to people expressing an opinion or belief.
Gate 4: understand that politicians and some media do an awful lot of power plays behind the scenes as they pass out their punishment.
Gate 5: stop all progress of the Emera deal until a referendum process is undertaken and complete.
If this is a democracy - the threats of retribution to citizens who speak out must stop.
Our history is filled with examples where neither elected representatives nor media have done due diligence and we have and continue to pay the price.
From the United Nations: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
When a citizen is discouraged from direct involvement through use of fear or intimidation - he/she does not live in a democracy.
It was only a short while ago that Premier Dunderdale stated that Tom Osborne did not do enough to build a relationship with her. For this reason and not for reason of competence or ability he did not make Cabinet?
Prime Minister Harper is a liar - straight up - yet the media does not only avoid the factual situation but also accepts his direction with respect to when he will answer questions and who he will answer in the media.
The race to the bottom is heating up and whether it's Cashin, Osborne, or any other soul who dares question, critique or oppose government or media - they are under threat of some sort of reprisal?
The same blogger mentioned earlier said the following:
"So why did Cashin put forth such a ridiculous claim? Well, it’s simple really. Cochrane asked him a question that made Cashin uncomfortable. In the press conference, Cochrane basically restated Premier Dunderdale’s position on not allowing expert witnesses in the House of Assembly for the special Muskrat Falls debate as they were going to follow the template set out in the Voisey’s Bay debate from years past. Cochrane probably knows full well all of the things that are wrong with Dunderdale’s assertion, but he clearly put it in front of Cashin for him to refute, if he could. THIS IS WHAT GOOD REPORTERS DO.
Cashin is right, comparing Voisey’s Bay to Muskrat Falls is like comparing apples and oranges. The fact that the premise for Cochrane’s question contained the assumption that it was okay to compare the two appeared to really piss him off. Cochrane premised a question with a notion that Cashin believes to be preposterous, as he appears to think it’s irresponsible to even suggest that Muskrat Falls is similar to Voisey’s Bay."
The question that comes to my mind is did David Cochrane question Dunderdale's premise in the same manner he asked Cashin to do?
Did he place before the Premier the facts of the Voisey's Bay debate and the factual differences between the two?
Did Cochrane drag out the factual assumptions of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro over the past 25 years ans ask Martin or Dunderdale to explain the errors?
Did Cochrane chase Premier Williams around after his resignation to find out what's up?
Oh there are so many questions that could and should be asked by Cochrane and I assume that Cashin along with many others are exasperated by the soft approach on Dunderdale while leaving the tougher more aggressive questioning to citizens voicing their concerns.
Why will we pay Emera for any part of delivering domestic power?
Why will we pay Emera to maintain any part of our pole infrastructure?
What is Emera's record in Nova Scotia or the Grand Bahamas?
Does former Premier Williams have any investments that could benefit from this deal?
Why are the ratepayers/taxpayers paying for this mess?
Developing any part of the Lower Churchill should equal thousands of long-term jobs in Labrador and should be paying a significant dividend to the ratepayers in order to keep prices lower not higher.
How about Cochrane does a straight comparison between this proposed deal with Emera and the two last attempted deals by Tobin and Grimes. Let's see the information. Let us - the citizens make a call based on REAL information.
How about the Quebec card? How about we have some answers on that. How about we ask if Quebec companies will benefit greatly from this deal? How about we establish a fact that Quebec could buy into Emera?
This deal and all its dirt must be exposed and then stopped.
The only people who are really being chastized, marginalized, scrutinized and punished regarding the Emera deal are citizens who are not being paid to either govern or report.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
The Upper and Lower Jaw of Kennedy's Muskrat
So Jerome Kennedy has become such an expert on the Lower Churchill - he cannot find anyone educated enough on the subject to debate with him.
Delusional! Minister Kennedy does not have the guts to debate the proposed deal on Muskrat with anybody unless that person is chosen by him and in an environment set up by him.
As for no special debate in the House of Assembly - well that's just laughable.
The mouths that are now government never stopped yapping when demanding a full debate on Voisey's Bay and the Inco deal. That is a non-renewable resource - the massive hydro power potential in Labrador is a renewable resource. It is also a resource in its own right as a river.
Kennedy has not answered the legitimate questions on this development and he has not begun to deal with the entire Churchill - Upper and Lower. It is all connected and each development will have an impact on the other.
2041 remains floating - with Kennedy blowing the hot-air to keep it up where people cannot see it.
Markets, Costs, Alternatives, Long-term employment, Labrador benefits, energy requirements, and privatization remain grey areas of speculation.
The costs to our people - particularly the coming generations is outrageous and renders them used in the same way our generation has been with the Upper Churchill fiasco.
If you want to push this mess of a deal - do so for real reasons and tell us what they are.
If you want this deal - stand and debate it.
Don't hide behind a cloak of innuendo, rhetoric, insults and delusions of superior knowledge or intelligence.
I don't like the cut of your jib - so show us the cut of your jaw in debate. A maul mouth you have proven - but wisdom you have not.
Delusional! Minister Kennedy does not have the guts to debate the proposed deal on Muskrat with anybody unless that person is chosen by him and in an environment set up by him.
As for no special debate in the House of Assembly - well that's just laughable.
The mouths that are now government never stopped yapping when demanding a full debate on Voisey's Bay and the Inco deal. That is a non-renewable resource - the massive hydro power potential in Labrador is a renewable resource. It is also a resource in its own right as a river.
Kennedy has not answered the legitimate questions on this development and he has not begun to deal with the entire Churchill - Upper and Lower. It is all connected and each development will have an impact on the other.
2041 remains floating - with Kennedy blowing the hot-air to keep it up where people cannot see it.
Markets, Costs, Alternatives, Long-term employment, Labrador benefits, energy requirements, and privatization remain grey areas of speculation.
The costs to our people - particularly the coming generations is outrageous and renders them used in the same way our generation has been with the Upper Churchill fiasco.
If you want to push this mess of a deal - do so for real reasons and tell us what they are.
If you want this deal - stand and debate it.
Don't hide behind a cloak of innuendo, rhetoric, insults and delusions of superior knowledge or intelligence.
I don't like the cut of your jib - so show us the cut of your jaw in debate. A maul mouth you have proven - but wisdom you have not.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Our politicians are Lying - Lying - and Lying again!
Everybody loves to see ex-pats return home to Newfoundland and Labrador.
It's the one excitement we get - compared to the pain and anguish of outmigration and the family consequences it brings.
Follow this:
A 35 year old leaves home - the fishery is no longer viable in his/her community. The person moves to Ontario or Alberta for work. At first the family stays behind - they can't sell their home - it's not worth anything anymore. As the months drag on with no prospects of the fishery recovering -those months become years and the family is suffering from the continued absence of a parent or spouse.
That 35 year old is now 38 and is either going through a divorce or is in the process of moving the family to Alberta or Ontario in an effort to save the relationship.
If divorce happens - the family is split - one spouse is trying to keep the homestead going in Newfoundland and Labrador within a community that can not hang on without the fishery. The children will be shuffled across the country - while both spouses seek a new relationship and perhaps a new family.
If the family moves - other family members are left behind. Grandpa and Grandma who planned to live with their children in older years now move into a government subsidized home. Aunts, uncles, and cousins lose touch and lose the all important sense of family that's felt in a rural community.
So far we have the taxpayer and the future generation gone - left behind are retirees that will require more government assistance in order to replace what would have been provided by the family.
Worse the children who have moved away with the parents are no longer going to grow into Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers and their grandparents needs; medical, transport, and care will be paid for by children of those who have stayed.
So the 35 year old who moved to Alberta and Ontario is lost to our tax base - as they spend productive tax years in another province. They pay for seniors care in Alberta or Ontario and nothing to the care of seniors in this province.
Eventually the 35 year old retires having spent 20 years of productivity somewhere else. Driving the economy of Alberta or Ontario. Driving the population and tax growth. Driving more seats in the House of Commons.
At 65 the person repatriates to Newfoundland and Labrador. They are on retirement income and in a very different tax bracket. As that person gains chronic and then debilitating illnesses - the taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador take on the health and drug costs. The taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador take on the cost of homecare or residency in a personal care home. The person who left at 35 did not contribute to the tax base for these essential services. That is left to the young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who remain home to work.
As the oil goes and continued resource giveaways come home to roost - young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians cannot afford the tax necessary to maintain essential health, transport, and education services. Off they go - to upper or western Canada while Newfoundland and Labrador slips into economic distress - the Greece of 2041.
Upper Churchill will save us? No it won't and that's why politicians won't and can't deal with the truth.
Canada is like a starving vampire - and the only blood it thirsts is the life-blood of Newfoundland and Labrador - and so far we are keeping it satisfied.
“When truth is replaced by silence,the silence is a lie.”
Yevgeny Yevtushenko
It's the one excitement we get - compared to the pain and anguish of outmigration and the family consequences it brings.
Follow this:
A 35 year old leaves home - the fishery is no longer viable in his/her community. The person moves to Ontario or Alberta for work. At first the family stays behind - they can't sell their home - it's not worth anything anymore. As the months drag on with no prospects of the fishery recovering -those months become years and the family is suffering from the continued absence of a parent or spouse.
That 35 year old is now 38 and is either going through a divorce or is in the process of moving the family to Alberta or Ontario in an effort to save the relationship.
If divorce happens - the family is split - one spouse is trying to keep the homestead going in Newfoundland and Labrador within a community that can not hang on without the fishery. The children will be shuffled across the country - while both spouses seek a new relationship and perhaps a new family.
If the family moves - other family members are left behind. Grandpa and Grandma who planned to live with their children in older years now move into a government subsidized home. Aunts, uncles, and cousins lose touch and lose the all important sense of family that's felt in a rural community.
So far we have the taxpayer and the future generation gone - left behind are retirees that will require more government assistance in order to replace what would have been provided by the family.
Worse the children who have moved away with the parents are no longer going to grow into Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers and their grandparents needs; medical, transport, and care will be paid for by children of those who have stayed.
So the 35 year old who moved to Alberta and Ontario is lost to our tax base - as they spend productive tax years in another province. They pay for seniors care in Alberta or Ontario and nothing to the care of seniors in this province.
Eventually the 35 year old retires having spent 20 years of productivity somewhere else. Driving the economy of Alberta or Ontario. Driving the population and tax growth. Driving more seats in the House of Commons.
At 65 the person repatriates to Newfoundland and Labrador. They are on retirement income and in a very different tax bracket. As that person gains chronic and then debilitating illnesses - the taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador take on the health and drug costs. The taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador take on the cost of homecare or residency in a personal care home. The person who left at 35 did not contribute to the tax base for these essential services. That is left to the young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who remain home to work.
As the oil goes and continued resource giveaways come home to roost - young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians cannot afford the tax necessary to maintain essential health, transport, and education services. Off they go - to upper or western Canada while Newfoundland and Labrador slips into economic distress - the Greece of 2041.
Upper Churchill will save us? No it won't and that's why politicians won't and can't deal with the truth.
Canada is like a starving vampire - and the only blood it thirsts is the life-blood of Newfoundland and Labrador - and so far we are keeping it satisfied.
“When truth is replaced by silence,the silence is a lie.”
Yevgeny Yevtushenko
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Simple Energy Question Government/Nalcor will NOT answer
Here it is and I send this challenge to all sitting MHA's in all parties and Nalcor Officials.
What happens in 2041?
Please answer this question - you all keep talking about 2041 - what happens?
Please provide the following information
1. What ends in 2041
2. Who owns the assets in 2041 and what assets are involved?
3. What about the water rights?
4. Who owns CFLCo?
5. How are decisions on future contracts regarding Upper Churchill power made?
6. Who sits on the Board of CFLCo?
7. Are there special decisions regarding CFLCo that need a majority of the board?
8. Do Hydro-Quebec representatives on the CFLCo Board have the power to stop future contracts?
What happens in 2041?
Please answer this question - you all keep talking about 2041 - what happens?
Please provide the following information
1. What ends in 2041
2. Who owns the assets in 2041 and what assets are involved?
3. What about the water rights?
4. Who owns CFLCo?
5. How are decisions on future contracts regarding Upper Churchill power made?
6. Who sits on the Board of CFLCo?
7. Are there special decisions regarding CFLCo that need a majority of the board?
8. Do Hydro-Quebec representatives on the CFLCo Board have the power to stop future contracts?
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Dear Dean, Brian, Danny, and MHA's - cut the 2041 Crap
PLEASE READ THE WORDS BELOW AND EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT HAPPENS IN 2041
By all means don't trip over yourselves getting to the answer.
Part of the Shareholders Agreement among NL Hydro, Hydro-Quebec, and CFLCo June 18th 1999
Article 3 Board of Directors
3.4 Special Majority Decisions of the Board of Directors
The following decisions will require the approval of a majority of the directors on the Board of Directors, including at least one director nominated by NL Hydro and one director nominated by Hydro-Quebec on the Board of Directors:
3.4.6
...the entering into, amendment or termination of any Material Contract to which CFLCo or any Subsidiary of CFLCo is a party or to which CFLCo or any Subsidiary of CFLCo may become a party, unless such entering into, amendment or termination has been previously approved in a budget approved under Section 3.4.2 or 3.4.3;
Material Contract defined: "Material Contract" means (i) any contract involving a monetary commitment of CFLCo or having a value to CFLCo of $10 million or more in the aggregate and (ii) any contract which restricts CFLCo from carrying on its Business, including the contracts listed on Schedule E;
Business defined: "Business" means the business of CFLCo which shall be limited to the following purposes and objects:
(a) to produce or otherwise acquire and to transmit and to sell electricity;
(b) to harness or otherwise make use of water for the purpose of producing hydroelectric and hydraulic power and for any other purpose;
By all means don't trip over yourselves getting to the answer.
Part of the Shareholders Agreement among NL Hydro, Hydro-Quebec, and CFLCo June 18th 1999
Article 3 Board of Directors
3.4 Special Majority Decisions of the Board of Directors
The following decisions will require the approval of a majority of the directors on the Board of Directors, including at least one director nominated by NL Hydro and one director nominated by Hydro-Quebec on the Board of Directors:
3.4.6
...the entering into, amendment or termination of any Material Contract to which CFLCo or any Subsidiary of CFLCo is a party or to which CFLCo or any Subsidiary of CFLCo may become a party, unless such entering into, amendment or termination has been previously approved in a budget approved under Section 3.4.2 or 3.4.3;
Material Contract defined: "Material Contract" means (i) any contract involving a monetary commitment of CFLCo or having a value to CFLCo of $10 million or more in the aggregate and (ii) any contract which restricts CFLCo from carrying on its Business, including the contracts listed on Schedule E;
Business defined: "Business" means the business of CFLCo which shall be limited to the following purposes and objects:
(a) to produce or otherwise acquire and to transmit and to sell electricity;
(b) to harness or otherwise make use of water for the purpose of producing hydroelectric and hydraulic power and for any other purpose;
Monday, September 26, 2011
The Final Odyssey - Churchill Falls So what about 2041?A Pacifier?
So what will happen in 2041 - the politicians will all have you believe that our time will come - justice will be done. Really?
So what happens? The water rights revert back to Newfoundland and Labrador? The deal is over?
The Churchill Falls - Labrador Corporation (CFLCo) is owned 1/3 by Hydro-Quebec. That does not change in 2041. What does CFLCo own? Well they own the infrastructure. So what do we do with that? Also thanks to Dean MacDonald and Brian Tobin - they have 50% influence over significant decisions.
Any chance the politicians are holding this out as some sort of pacifier? Let's suck on that to keep us quiet for the next 30 years? No doubt people like Terry French and Steve Kent don't know the difference. No doubt most of the MHAs don't know the difference.
Is there a problem with us? There must be - we are too trusting or too willing to let others manage our wealth for us. Yet in our day to day lives - anybody who managed our accounts or investments in the same way would be fired ages ago.
Please look at this seriously - particularly when Kathy Dunderdale is trying to give away another resource for over 30 years. Stop the madness. Demand a proper deal for our valuable resources.
So what will happen in 2041? Our children and grandchildren can deal with it right? We owe it to them to do things right. We owe it them to be as concerned about the Emera deal - at least as much as we are concerned with Hockeyville. Right?
So what happens? The water rights revert back to Newfoundland and Labrador? The deal is over?
The Churchill Falls - Labrador Corporation (CFLCo) is owned 1/3 by Hydro-Quebec. That does not change in 2041. What does CFLCo own? Well they own the infrastructure. So what do we do with that? Also thanks to Dean MacDonald and Brian Tobin - they have 50% influence over significant decisions.
Any chance the politicians are holding this out as some sort of pacifier? Let's suck on that to keep us quiet for the next 30 years? No doubt people like Terry French and Steve Kent don't know the difference. No doubt most of the MHAs don't know the difference.
Is there a problem with us? There must be - we are too trusting or too willing to let others manage our wealth for us. Yet in our day to day lives - anybody who managed our accounts or investments in the same way would be fired ages ago.
Please look at this seriously - particularly when Kathy Dunderdale is trying to give away another resource for over 30 years. Stop the madness. Demand a proper deal for our valuable resources.
So what will happen in 2041? Our children and grandchildren can deal with it right? We owe it to them to do things right. We owe it them to be as concerned about the Emera deal - at least as much as we are concerned with Hockeyville. Right?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)