The EXperts - Muskrat Falls

Since 2006 Sue's Blog has been warning through posts about the disastrous Muskrat Falls project.

Bits and pieces of the Inquiry refer to critics of the project - not being experts.

Let's take that at face value and reflect upon the experts.

Clearly the highly paid experts were wrong in many areas of assessment. Clearly they failed initially to project and overcome engineering and design difficulties regarding the site. Clearly the project is a failure on every measurable level.

Miraculously the non-experts were right in many areas of assessment. Miraculously the non-experts did not miss the peculiarities of the site engineering. Miraculously they were successful in assessing the Muskrat Falls deal was horrific.

Now the other non-experts (politicians) were clearly incapable of understanding what the experts were concluding. They were clearly unable to see the massive flaws in the deal and the engineering. They were clearly non-experts listening to paid experts -most of whom will not likely suffer from this boondoggle.

For what use is an expert - if the person acting on an "experts" advice would not be independently be able to see the potential flaws? What's worse - the politicians refused to listen to critics - ignored or worse subjected the non-experts to terms such as partisans, naysayers, and conspiracy theorists.

There were opportunities to engage the citizenry but they were not afforded.

Citizen groups should have been provided funding throughout the processes from conception to sanction. This funding could have provided the non-expert politicians with real concerns, real hazards, and real findings from the non-expert citizenry.

Further this size of a deal should have gone through a referendum process where - the citizen non-experts were given the opportunity to promote and educate regarding their points of view and real concerns.

You see if the non-expert politicians felt expert enough to make the legislative commitment - they should have allowed the non-expert citizenry a real opportunity to be heard.

None of the politicians did this. No political party did this.

Declining population, increasing efficiencies in housing and appliances, closure of two mills, numerous fish plants, schools, clinics etc are examples of reasonable considerations to determine future power supply requirements.

Muskrat Falls versus the entire Lower Churchill or even Gull Island begged the question why choose Muskrat.

Emera owning ANY part of our domestic distribution system is illogical and not to our benefit. It will increase prices.

Dealing with Emera - a company that could be the subject of a hostile or welcome takeover - particularly when Hydro-Quebec is the touted enemy - and could easily consume Emera minus Nova Scotia Power - was a poor choice.

The critical removal of alternate energy sources into the future was naive at best and corrupt at worst.

The engineering challenges - poorly thought out, considered, or even dealt with was another red flag for a layman.

The power needs of Labrador - routinely and as is usual dismissed including but not limited to plugging an industry of substance into the new supply - another red flag.

The continued interference with the Public Utilities Board - when they are the stop gap for consumers - yet another red flag.

Budgets that were routinely over - became the norm - raising another red flag.

The lack of knowledge of many MHA's regarding the history of the hydro-potentials in Labrador was and continues to be a very disturbing situation.

The obvious angst of indigenous peoples despite the approval by some of their leaders should have been addressed.

This is but a short list of how a citizen could have been and some citizens were very concerned about this failed project.

The decision by Dwight Ball and the Liberal government to push through the remainder of the project without thorough analysis and public input into other options - just continued the madness that is Muskrat.

The Inquiry is a political decision to thwart anger of consumers and taxpayers away from the current government and will do nothing to demonstrate the mess that occurred after they took office.

The EXperts they say? Funny how the naysayers, conspiracy theorists, partisan hacks, and all other names given to critics of the project - were miraculously right.

As I write today the folly continues and we are made to look more the fools than we already are.

And so the smell of Muskrat continues...The Perfect Storm for the next Giveaway

I hardly got the words off the keyboard regarding Penashue's position on the budget - when I read at the CBC website the "New Dawn" agreement between the Innu and Government of Newfoundland and Labrador - is now scheduled for a ratification vote.

Surprise - Surprise - So the deal sits there for almost three years - and now the vote is scheduled? Clearing Lower Churchill hurdles to assist Ms. Dunderdale in pushing the Muskrat deal through. This at the same time as Penashue supports Harper - so he can shove through a loan guarantee for the project - that sees everybody benefit but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

1. Kathy announces new love for Harper (drops ABC Campaign)

2. Harper quasi promises the loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill

3. Penashue runs and "wins" Labrador seat

4. Harper names Penashue Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

So Todd Russell, Metis, loses - everybody is shocked. Peter Penashue, Innu - everybody is shocked.

Harper now has ally for Old Harry to be awarded to Quebec. Romaine River will remain unchallenged. Metis will be blocked from Lower Churchill deal. Kathy Dunderdale hastily moves forward on deal ignoring the people of Newfoundland and Labrador while ignoring her position that an unelected Premier sign a major resource deal. The New Dawn deal suddenly comes up for ratification clearing another hurdle for Muskrat development. Harper gives loan guarantee which satisifies Nova Scotia and Peter MacKay.

The New Dawn - will not only see the Innu benefit from a development - they have been so opposed to (loss of land and habitat) - and further will see you and I pay the Innu compensation for the Upper Churchill.

Dunderdale drunk on power and fuelled by ignorance has no interest whatsoever in the people she serves - moves forward despite significant reservations of people who understand the development and proposed deal. Dunderdale, Skinner, Martin and Nalcor's Gil Bennett treating the resource as a privately owned property.

This is the Perfect Storm for a very bad outcome. Please review the series of events - and while a "New Dawn" might be enjoyed by the Innu Nation the future for our province will sink below the horizon - and be lost for generations to come.

Two questions: Has Shawn Skinner taken the kool-aid accidentally and is Tom Marshall his own man?

Piece Meal Deal no this is not KFChicken it's Muskrat

From what I read in the Telegram today - the provincial government is attempting to change a deal on the fly. This reminds me of Premier Lord in New Brunswick when Hydro-Quebec was attempting to buy that province's energy company.

Minister of Natural Resources is quoted in the Telegram story as saying "There are going to be benefits for the people of Labrador, and they will become clearer as this process unfolds and more information gets out." Skinner also said of Danny Dumeresque's critique of the deal, "I'm just concerned that he's out trying to say it's a bad deal when all the terms of the deal have not been negotiated."

I would like to add for Minister Skinner's benefit, that it is not only Danny Dumeresque concerned about the proposed deal and that others have more fundamental concerns regarding the entire approach. I for one can say that the whole proposal negates the fundamental principles of developing renewable hydro for industrial development in Labrador.

All of this was in response to a survey conducted with Labradorians by MP Todd Russell regarding the Muskrat Falls development proposal. See Below and also at the Heart of Labrador

RUSSELL RELEASES PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF MUSKRAT FALLS SURVEY

Results for those surveys processed as of February 8^th are as follows:

On the main question, “Do you support or oppose the proposed Muskrat Falls agreement?”,

·         45% of respondents strongly oppose and 13% somewhat oppose;

·         12% strongly support and 20% somewhat support;

·         10% are not sure.

Results from other questions reveal public concerns about the economic, environmental, and other aspects of the proposed project:

Q1. Does the proposed Muskrat Falls development provide enough benefit for the people of Labrador? — 83% NO.

Q2. Are you concerned about the environmental impacts of the proposed Muskrat Falls project? — 78% YES.

Q3. Have Labradorians been properly consulted about the proposed Muskrat Falls project? — 78% NO.

Q4. Do you feel that you have enough information about the proposed Muskrat Falls project? — 83% NO.

Q5. Should Muskrat Falls power be available in Labrador for residential and commercial customers? — 95% YES.

Q6. Does the proposed agreement respect the Aboriginal rights of Innu, Inuit, and Metis in Labrador? — 67% NO.

Q7. Are you satisfied with the proposed employment benefits for Labrador residents? — 66% NO.

Q8. Do you believe that Labrador will receive a fair share of revenues from Muskrat Falls power sales? — 86% NO.

Q9. Should a dedicated Labrador development fund be a condition of a proposed Muskrat Falls project? — 83% YES.

Q10. Do you support federal funding for transmission lines to Newfoundland or Nova Scotia? — 46% NO, 40% YES. (This was the only question on which opinion is “split”.)

Q11. Do you feel that Labradorians will be the “primary beneficiaries” of the proposed Muskrat Falls project? — 87% NO.