The Muskrat Stinks!

Navigant = Nalcor = Government

Manitoba Hydro Report = PUB

PUB holds hearings after report and still finds there is not enough information.

Shut the project down!

Wasting half a billion is better than wasting 6 billion.

Better than the other billions - untold - as project fails in the market.

The Island does not need this power.

Labrador needs to be energized - including for significant industrial potential.
 
There are better options for Muskrat  - better deals for Labradorians and generations to come.

This project - Pet Project - is at best a vendetta against Hydro-Quebec and at worst Pork!

Cochrane and Simms do not Control Muskrat Debate!

Over the past couple of weeks some members of the media - commentators, reporters, and pundits appeared to have been dissuading people and politicians alike - from continued opposition to Muskrat Falls.

I have heard statements like - "nothing new" - which of course was the spin being promoted by Dunderdale and company.

I have a question for David Cochrane who carries himself like the head honcho of Newfoundland and Labrador "journalism". Have all the previously noted concerns been resolved?

The problem is that if a question - the same question - goes unanswered (satisfactorily) should one just stop asking?

From where I sit many questions asked from day one - have never been answered. The fact that Kennedy or Dunderdale open mouths and spew rhetoric does not mean an issue is resolved.

We are talking about 6-8 billion dollars of our money, the money of our children and grandchildren; we need to know if this project is the right one.

Some of the Unanswered Concerns:

1. What happens in 2041 and does this project have the potential to harm us in future dealings?

2. The need for power.

3. Alternatives.

4. Lowest Cost Alternative.

5. Labrador benefits.

6. Cheaper power for Nova Scotia.

7. Subsidization by Newfoundland and Labrador ratepayers.

8. The need of a partner.

9. Long-term jobs.

10. Potential for alternative industrial development.

The problem - as I see it - is the media who are demonstrably frustrated by the ongoing debate are those individuals who are not educated enough on the issue to ask the right questions or lack the guts to take on the governing PC's.

I have watched most of Cochrane's material and in my opinion - he lacks information or the desire to really challenge the "facts" the government puts forth.

Randy Simms - in my opinion does not have the knowledge to determine if something regarding the project has been answered satisfactorily.

If they are going to use the media power available to them - they must also appreciate the responsibility that goes with that. I do not see that concern in them - and therefore - in my opinion they are doing the province and its people a disservice.

Now of course I am assuming here that the media will not act like Dunderdale and Kennedy and condemn somebody for speaking up. I do know better however.

Former AG John Noseworthy - Special Assignment?

My vote to lead an independent review of the proposed deal to develop Muskrat Falls is John Noseworthy.

First - he has spent a portion of his professional career being "independent", second his audit abilities are fine tuned, and third he has proven his worth to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a watchdog.

Now the deal would be that Mr. Noseworthy has unfettered access to ALL the information - including the ability to test ALL assumptions and look at ALL alternatives.

As people who are being asked to spend 6 billion dollars of our money - our children's and our grandchildren's money - we want to do our due diligence.

Noseworthy may not be an energy expert - but he can employ that expertise.

Let Mr. Noseworthy hold public meetings and conduct individual interviews to establish what the outstanding issues and concerns are. Let Mr. Noseworthy review the processes used by Nalcor and Government to achieve this proposed deal with Emera. Let Mr. Noseworthy employ the experts  he feels necessary to review energy potentials and the costs and benefits of each.

Let Mr. Noseworthy examine costs and benefits or pitfalls of a deal with Emera and let him examine whether other potential partnerships or contracts for supply of power could bring the people who own the resource - us - a better rate of return.

Let Mr. Noseworthy examine the Island's "real" need for power - not based on Hydro's assumptions but based on thorough research of the situation and the installed assets we currently own.

Let him do an audit of our installed capacity and look at efficiency potentials and review whether all capacity is being used.

Let Mr. Noseworthy examine industrial potentials for the power in Labrador and compare the price of power delivered to a customer in Labrador versus doubling the cost from lengthy and complicated transmission routes.

Let Mr. Noseworthy examine tenders already awarded and determine whether the process used was fair and provided the best value for our money.

Let. Mr. Noseworthy determine if it is necessary for Newfoundland and Labrador ratepayers to subsidize costs for power delivery to other provinces.

Let Mr. Noseworthy determine what the costs of the Muskrat development would be - as part of a complete development of the Lower Churchill - including Gull Island and then compare that to the current proposal.

Let. him determine if developing Gull Island first would bring a better return.

Let Mr. Noseworthy review the proposed deal under Premier Grimes and compare it to the proposed deal of Premier Williams - to determine which of the two provided the best return to us - the owners - and best deal to us - the ratepayers.

Then as the kicker let Mr. Noseworthy and his team review the past 5 years of Nalcor operations - all books - all contracts - and all assumptions.

Let him determine what the cost-overruns might be. 

Then he can provide the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the information we need to ensure we never repeat past mistakes and to ensure we are using our natural resources for the maximum benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador.

For Premier Dunderdale's peace of mind - he just ran as a PC candidate - so she can be assured he would not be a Liberal or NDP naysayer.

I vote for John Noseworthy - on Special Assignment.

Is Emera deal based on a False diagnosis and Limited treatment options?

In today's Telegram - Russell Wangersky addresses an important point. "Covering all the bases" deals with assumptions and reviews.

Last week Sue's Blog asked the following question?

"Why are all independent reviews guided by Nalcor's numbers and projections?"

Be it Manitoba Hydro or Navigant - in completing an "independent" review - they were restricted by defined options and defined assumptions.

I have no doubt that I and many other interested individuals - if tasked with the same body of work - would come back with the same conclusions.

If you have inaccurate assumptions going in you may have an inaccurate finding coming out.

Then based on the possible inaccurate conclusions you then present two possible options for resolving what may be non-existent problem.

Wangersky's column starts to deal with this mess.

Let's compare this to a health issue. A patient presents to a physician with a distended stomach. The physician proceeds to measure the stomach - touch the affected area - and question the patient on how they are feeling.

From there the physician says you have a tumor and here are your two options. We can cut it out - or we can radiate. The physician then spends significant time explaining the potential risks and side-affects of each treatment. From there the patient is asked to make a decision.

The patient instead asks the doctor to get a second opinion. The physician sends to a second and third physician the conclusions and treatment options. The other doctors are advised that no other treatment options can be considered and the original findings of a tumor have to be accepted based on the tests of the original physician.

The following problems exist:

1. The diagnosis was based on a limited number of tests and therefore may not be sufficient to determine the real cause of the distended stomach.

2. The treatment may be inappropriate as the problem and causes were incorrectly diagnosed.

3. Even if the diagnosis of a tumor was accurate - limiting the choice of treatment options does not allow another doctor to recommend a treatment that may be superior to the other two and may in fact cause less distress and provide a better health outcome for the patient.

This is exactly the problem we have here.

Sue's Blog - does have a recommendation for an independent review - Stay tuned for next post.

I'm Sorry won't cut it this time - This time it will be over! Will Dunderdale care? No!

There have been many important elections in our past. This is the most important election of our time. Forgiveness is not an option.

Make no mistake - Premier Dunderdale is making this election about one issue - Muskrat Falls. Why? Because if she is reelected she WILL go forward with the Emera deal.

There is only one way to stop this deal and that is to stop the Dunderdale Government from winning.

This is a current day repeat of the Upper Churchill and we must take a stand. We must stop past mistakes from reoccurring - we must stop a disaster for our people now - and we must stop what will be the ruination of our future.

This deal represents us here and now - it will determine if we have learned from our past - it will determine if we are going to let power hungry and knowledge deficient politicians ruin our future.

First the MHA's are not educated enough or really do not care about this issue, the options, or anything that goes against the wholesale giveaway of our resources.

We do not have satisfactory answers - we are missing very real information - and we risk the entire future of our children.

This must be stopped. This would be an unforgivable act.

It does not make sense to have our children pay for over 4 billion in debt through unacceptable energy costs. It does not make sense to build an expensive transmission system to deliver cheaper power to Nova Scotia. Nalcor's numbers are not reliable. The government has not proven that this is the best project. The Navigant study is not sufficient in scope or depth to rely on.

This is an unforgivable act. If you want to see treason - this is it. We go into debt and pay unsustainable power rates to give cheap power to Nova Scotia. I have to wonder if Dunderdale is simply saying "we believe you are that stupid Newfoundlanders and Labradorians". The PC slogan New Energy - must be the last smack at the people. Dunderdale is saying - let me shove this bad deal in front of your face - and see if you bite.

Hook Line and Sinker is the only fisheries term Kathy Dunderdale wants to hear.