Rob Antle and Dave Cochrane - two CBC journalists - are to be commended for scratching the surface of PC hypocrisy. Their story today deals with promises made by the Tories in 2003 regarding electoral reform - and the promises broken regarding same. You can read their story HERE.
The bravado and chest-thumping of Danny Williams in 2002-2003 - came with it - promises to do many things differently than the Liberals.
Party leadership contests and the financing of same was absent in legislation and Williams promised to fix it. It did not get fixed.
This is a serious matter - no doubt - but pales in comparison to other promises of change made by then Opposition leader Danny Williams.
These two journalists have begun the process - I hope they continue the probe by reviewing promises on - energy, mining, forestry, and fishery. The people deserve to know - if not by the Tories or Opposition - then by the media - what exactly was promised on natural resource developments.
The information is all there - the only thing missing - the direct questions to the government on why they did not live up to the promises they made.
The commentary on the fishery, the paper mills, the mining sector, and energy was very aggressive and designed to make people believe that we would get more benefits under natural resource development than we would have under the Liberals.
The continued pouncing on the governing Liberals by Williams and rat-pack was specific and aimed toward the ear of the voter.
What should we have expected over the decade that followed 2003? How many long-term jobs from industrial development? How many projects where "construction" was not the objective - but permanent well paying trades positions was the objective?
The Tories have stripped away at the value of resources for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they have ushered in closures of many industrial operations, failed to improve our place in Canada, and squandered billions of our oil revenues.
So hats off to Cochrane and Antle - let's keep the accountability coming.
I do have one small critique - you state that, "This is the party’s first contested leadership race in nearly two
decades, and the first chance for the Tories to play by the rules they
promised to implement while in opposition."
It's not a contested race yet.
Showing posts with label voisey's bay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voisey's bay. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Media - Marshall - Muskrat
Let's all go back to 2002/2003 when Danny Williams was the coming of the savior. The Liberals were on their way out and the Tories were in a fit of hyperbole. The local media were chewing it up and spitting it out.
So let's find out if even the basic levels of investigation and balance exists in our current crop of journalists.
How about we get these basic questions answered.
What did the polls look like in March of 2003? Where did the Tories and Liberals sit?
What were the polls on leadership in that same time frame?
When you finish gathering that information - have a look at the House of Assembly Hansard and the statements coming out of the Tory Opposition - including Danny Williams.
From that information - please answer the following:
1. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because of the polls the government had no mandate to carry on?
2. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because Roger Grimes was not an "elected" Premier - he did not have the mandate to strike any resource deals?
3. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues suggest that Grimes and his government were afraid to take such deals to the public in an election?
4. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues hammer on the following points:
a) The findings of the Auditor General with respect to similar issues that AG Terry Paddon is
talking about now
b) The development of the Lower Churchill and Voisey's Bay and the mandate of former
Premier Brian Tobin with respect to any deal - any change of promise or term of a deal
c) The unfunded pension liabilities
d) The deficit and debt
e) the secrecy of the government
The information is all there. Will the media hold them accountable?
How about this - Dunderdale was elected based on a proposed agreement with Emera - the deal changed before sanction - and while their polling tanked. If this was 2003 and Danny Williams was addressing then Premier Roger Grimes - what would have been said?
Well that information is there. The Liberals did not have a mandate to change the terms outlined by former Premier Brian Tobin on Voisey's Bay.
Premier Marshall and his government need to take the changed agreement on Muskrat to the people in the form of a general election. They need to stop proceeding with this project unless they can renew their mandate. More particularly as Danny Williams would have said: Mr. Marshall you are not an elected Premier.
To make matters worse - soon we will have gone through 4 Premiers for one project - to sanction.
So let's find out if even the basic levels of investigation and balance exists in our current crop of journalists.
How about we get these basic questions answered.
What did the polls look like in March of 2003? Where did the Tories and Liberals sit?
What were the polls on leadership in that same time frame?
When you finish gathering that information - have a look at the House of Assembly Hansard and the statements coming out of the Tory Opposition - including Danny Williams.
From that information - please answer the following:
1. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because of the polls the government had no mandate to carry on?
2. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues state that because Roger Grimes was not an "elected" Premier - he did not have the mandate to strike any resource deals?
3. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues suggest that Grimes and his government were afraid to take such deals to the public in an election?
4. Did Danny Williams and his Opposition colleagues hammer on the following points:
a) The findings of the Auditor General with respect to similar issues that AG Terry Paddon is
talking about now
b) The development of the Lower Churchill and Voisey's Bay and the mandate of former
Premier Brian Tobin with respect to any deal - any change of promise or term of a deal
c) The unfunded pension liabilities
d) The deficit and debt
e) the secrecy of the government
The information is all there. Will the media hold them accountable?
How about this - Dunderdale was elected based on a proposed agreement with Emera - the deal changed before sanction - and while their polling tanked. If this was 2003 and Danny Williams was addressing then Premier Roger Grimes - what would have been said?
Well that information is there. The Liberals did not have a mandate to change the terms outlined by former Premier Brian Tobin on Voisey's Bay.
Premier Marshall and his government need to take the changed agreement on Muskrat to the people in the form of a general election. They need to stop proceeding with this project unless they can renew their mandate. More particularly as Danny Williams would have said: Mr. Marshall you are not an elected Premier.
To make matters worse - soon we will have gone through 4 Premiers for one project - to sanction.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
The Sun has FINALLY Shone on Muskrat Falls
Now we are talking. When did this become such a
notion for our sitting Tories and retired Chief?
The big revelation! The mines need the power. Alderon
needs the power.
Here we were humming along - chatting with Quebec -
talking Lower Churchill - then - as if from nowhere - OMG - we are running out
of power. We will need to put bricks in our beds in order to stay warm.
A new fight with Quebec. Negotiations are off the table
- go away - pull out the flag - fly it - use it - "we don't like
Quebec" remember - they say - remember the Upper Churchill. It's their
entire fault - they are unreasonable so we will go around them. Watch us - lace
up the skates - off with the gloves.
Then we got a deal - we will avoid Quebec - keep the
bricks from our bed - and green up Canada and the northeast USA.
Deal announced - Premier gone, Bureaucrat gone, Nalcor
executive gone, - where?
Well after an "acceptable" period of
absence - to the open arms of Alderon. Who? Alderon - who claim they better get
power or their materially damaged.
Slowly but painfully surely we reached today - the
day when we are told the mines need the power.
Now it's all okay - the massive debt, empty consumer
pockets, and hospitals - roads - potable water - - schools can all take a hit because
we are spending on power for the mines.
What's the deal now?
Well if we were told the mines needed it in the
first place - which has been known for some time - then we would demand
something in return for favourable power rates and access to the raw
resources.
Example - if INCO wanted the ore - we want -
long-term jobs, post-secondary processing, research dollars, and investments in
community infrastructure. That was just to do what these mining companies in
Labrador want to do and that's extract and export raw resources.
Have a look at Hansard and count how many times
Opposition Tories demanded that these things not only occur but be cast in
stone.
Oh let me remember now - smelting, secondary
processing, long-term jobs for the ore. Go have a look at yourself - refresh
your memory because now the time has come for the Tories to deliver the
same.
Count how many times a PC MHA said smelter and
refining of our precious natural resources - how many times they explained
NO MORE GIVEAWAYS.
Now the ball is directly in their court - they
control the playing field and companies want to extract ore from Labrador.
1. If you want special finance rates for power -
become involved in the financing of the project.
2. Deliver secondary processing of every ounce of
ore you extract.
3. Provide research and development funds, and
improve upon what INCO started with commitment to secondary education.
4. For every mine being talked about today by the
Minister and Premier - deliver a special debate in the House of Assembly on
every deal to develop ore bodies so we can get a look at what they are
offering.
The shoes are on your feet now - let's see you walk
the talk.
The game changer was announced today and now there
should be full media attention and exposure to what each of these mining companies
will be doing for us.
Right now what I see is we - the owners of the power
resource - pay for the production, transmission, and distribution of power from
Muskrat so that mining companies can get a reduced rate to send our ore to
China for processing.
Was the back door approach used? Let us now
proceed with the real debate.
Do not let one new MW be constructed until we have a
referendum on the project and a full and complete debate in the House of
Assembly on every deal to extract ore.
Remember the Tory Position
Remember a few short years ago.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
The real torpedo in the
bow of this government's scam and sham was when Scott Hand came out and said
that they were going to keep the smelters in Sudbury and in Thompson productive
and competitive for a long, long time. That was it. That was the fatal blow,
because then the jig was up. Then the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
finally found out what the real deal was; and the real deal was that our ore,
our concentrate, our nickel, our whatever, was going to leave this Province and
keep Sudbury and Thompson going for a long period of time. To add, Mr. Speaker,
300 new jobs are going to be created in Sudbury this year. To add to that, Mr.
Speaker, the Mayor of Thompson, Manitoba, is breaking champagne and the people
are dancing in the streets because they are going to have our jobs. That is
simply wrong.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WILLIAMS:
What about
us, Mr. Speaker? What about Newfoundland and Labrador? What about the jobs
here, Mr. Speaker? That is what we need to concentrate on, not 300 jobs in
Sudbury, not 1,000 jobs in Thompson.
Let's go through out-migration,
Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about what has happened in our communities in the last
five years when 40,000 people have left our Province. Let's look at the
percentages over the last five years. In Portugal Cove South, 21.4 per cent of
the people have left. In St. Shotts, 31 per cent of the people have left. In
Aquaforte, 22.7 per cent of the people have left. In Peter's River, St.
Vincent's, St. Stephens, 24.3 per cent of the people have left our Province. In
Gaskiers, 21.5 per cent.
I am going to continue on,
Mr. Speaker. I know it is difficult for hon. members opposite, but we are going
to go through some of this list. In Sunnyside, 23.2 per cent of the people have
left. In Heart's Desire, 25.3 per cent. In Cupids, 13 per cent. In Ricketts,13
per cent. In Lawn,18.6 per cent. In Lamaline, 21.4 per cent. In Fox Cove, Bay
L'Argent, Grand Le Pierre: 14 per cent, 15 per cent and 10 per cent. In
Rushoon, 18 per cent of the people have left our Province. In Gaultois, 24.1
per cent in the last five years have left Newfoundland and Labrador. In
Milltown, 21.4 per cent. In Morrisville, 22 percent. In Ramea, 30 per cent of
the people, one third of the people of Ramea, have had to leave our Province
and this government is going to send jobs to Sudbury and Thompson, Manitoba.
Shame on all of you!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: I will
continue, Mr. Speaker.
In Cape St. George, 15.4
per cent. In Lourdes, 14.2 per cent. In Port au Port West, Aguathuna, 15.2 per
cent. In Jackson's Arm, 10.6 per cent. In Howley, 19.3 per cent. In Hampden,
16.4 per cent. In Norris Arm, 16.3 per cent. In Little Catalina, 16.2 per cent.
In Elliston, Catalina and Bonavista, 21.9 per cent, 13 per cent and 11 per cent
have left in those communities. In Traytown, 18.3 per cent have left. In Happy
Adventure, 14 per cent. In St. Brendan's, 21.8 per cent. In Melrose, 13.7 per
cent. In Carmanville, 12.6 per cent. In Fogo, 18.2 per cent. In Change Islands,
21.7 per cent. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will continue. In Summerford,
Twillingate and Campbellton, 11.2 per cent, 11.6 per cent and 12 per cent have
left these three communities.
MR. WILLIAMS
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker
I thank the hon. the Premier for indicating that
there, in fact, will be no conventional smelter. That promise has been broken.
In fact, he has also confirmed that there may not be a hydromet. So, there is
no guarantee of a smelter and there is no guarantee of a hydromet facility.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please confirm, in the
event that the experimental hydromet facility does not prove to be
economically, technically or commercially feasible, that this Province will not
receive a Conventional smelting facility, which I am certain
that he has, and he has already done so, as was promised and guaranteed by both
the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy, but instead may, not will -
may, and may only - receive a nickel matte refinery or some other facility,
which is referred to in the documentation as some other facility? It doesn't
specify what it is. It is some other facility, as stated in clause 22. Will the
Premier, in fact, confirm that particular facility is also not guaranteed?
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
Monday, October 08, 2012
Talk with Sue welcomes former Premier on Wednesday
I am pleased to advise listeners that former Premier Roger Grimes will our guest on Talk with Sue - For the Record - series on Wednesday evening starting at 8 pm on the Island and 7:30 pm in most of Labrador.
This series which debuted last week with Danny Dumaresque - specifically deals with critics of the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.
Roger will bring an interesting perspective to the program as one of a small group of people ever to have served as Premier.
Further he is the Premier that finalized the successful Voisey's Bay project - arguably the best industrial deal the province has ever made.
We will talk about the proposed Muskrat deal, the process of sanction, House of Assembly debate, Hydro-Quebec, industrial potential, and past proposals for development.
The show will be an hour and a half long allowing for more detail on this most important public policy and development issue.
Please join us by clicking HERE
This series which debuted last week with Danny Dumaresque - specifically deals with critics of the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.
Roger will bring an interesting perspective to the program as one of a small group of people ever to have served as Premier.
Further he is the Premier that finalized the successful Voisey's Bay project - arguably the best industrial deal the province has ever made.
We will talk about the proposed Muskrat deal, the process of sanction, House of Assembly debate, Hydro-Quebec, industrial potential, and past proposals for development.
The show will be an hour and a half long allowing for more detail on this most important public policy and development issue.
Please join us by clicking HERE
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, January 16, 2012
Williams Supports Public Consultations by Non-Partisan Committee of House
"I would
suggest as well, if anything happens with regard to the Lower Churchill, if
there is any tentative agreement or any framework of an agreement - not a
tentative agreement, the framework of an agreement struck on the Lower
Churchill - that before anything is signed, before anything is agreed to, the
Minister of Mines and Energy, as Chairperson of that particular panel, should
go around - in the event of a Voisey’s Bay deal, or in the event of a deal on
the Lower Churchill, there should be an all party, non-partisan committee of
this House struck to go around and listen to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, to hear what they want, to hear what their interests are, and to hear
what they think a deal should be. That is what should be done."
Above is a statement made by former Premier Danny Williams in the House of Assembly when he was the Leader of the Opposition.
The former Premier struck the proposed deal with Emera on the Muskrat Falls development.
What was Williams asking for above?
Williams says that on such a deal a non-partisan committee of the House be struck to do public consultations.
Is the development of Muskrat Falls such a deal?
Will he now call on Premier Dunderdale to do the same thing he asked of former Premier Grimes?
Why is Williams skirting this issue?
Why is Williams not demanding this process now?
Will the media ask these questions? It's for the record right?
Above is a statement made by former Premier Danny Williams in the House of Assembly when he was the Leader of the Opposition.
The former Premier struck the proposed deal with Emera on the Muskrat Falls development.
What was Williams asking for above?
Williams says that on such a deal a non-partisan committee of the House be struck to do public consultations.
Is the development of Muskrat Falls such a deal?
Will he now call on Premier Dunderdale to do the same thing he asked of former Premier Grimes?
Why is Williams skirting this issue?
Why is Williams not demanding this process now?
Will the media ask these questions? It's for the record right?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Here - there - everywhere Aluminum - but....
not Newfoundland and Labrador.
Let's look at the Aluminum Sector:
In North America Primary Aluminum production uses over 9000 MW's of power. Of this 70% is hydro generated - 29% is coal generated - the remaining 1% is shared by oil - natural gas and nuclear generation. None are powered by wind.
Clearly the aluminum sector prefers hydro generation for power supply.
This extends to other jurisdictions in the world - where - if hydro is available they will use it.
According to the International Aluminum Institute:
For our tremendous Lower Churchill power - Labrador must be an ideal candidate. The fact that previous governments and the current administration has been unable to successfully attract under reasonable terms this type of industry only reflects regressive policy of developing the Lower Churchill for export.
As one reader of Sue's Blog pointed out - sarcastically - "Iceland has no choice: it either uses its electricity within Iceland, or it doesn't get used at all." I guess that's the answer then - when industry knows it must come to a jurisdiction to utilize hydro power - it will.
Thus Iceland has 3 aluminum smelters - Labrador has none and that wonderful Upper Churchill power has helped to create:
The first step in processing aluminum in Quebec employs close
to 4,800 people in plants whose capacity represents 23% of
the Province’s primary production.
Second and third processing activities, although significant,
are difficult to quantify because they take place in very
diverse sectors.
A study of industrial sub-contracting in Quebec (Sous-traitance
industrielle du Québec - STIQ) revealed that over 1,300
manufacturing facilities use aluminum in their products.
It should also be remembered that, while aluminum smelters
naturally tend to locate close to sources of electric power at
competitive prices, the transformation sector tends to locate
close to markets liable to receive its products.
Significant efforts have been made to promote aluminum
fabrication in Quebec, particularly in the research sector.
The industry has made a commitment to create 1,500 jobs
in the fabrication sector over the next 10 years.
It is time to stop bypassing Labrador as the industrial capitol of our province. When you consider the iron-ore deposits - Voisey's Bay minerals - potential uranium and other major mineral deposits - and add the Upper and Lower Churchill power potentials - it had to take complete mismanagement and inferior policy not to have achieved this by now.
If hydro and mineral resources were handled to make Labrador the primary beneficiary of the regional resources - we would not need Hebron to bring any Newfoundlander and Labradorian home - they would already be here - and we would be attracting workers from the rest of Canada here.
Do not allow the export of Lower Churchill power.
Let's look at the Aluminum Sector:
In North America Primary Aluminum production uses over 9000 MW's of power. Of this 70% is hydro generated - 29% is coal generated - the remaining 1% is shared by oil - natural gas and nuclear generation. None are powered by wind.
Clearly the aluminum sector prefers hydro generation for power supply.
This extends to other jurisdictions in the world - where - if hydro is available they will use it.
According to the International Aluminum Institute:
At least 55 per cent of the world's primary aluminium is produced using hydro-electric power which is clean, non polluting and renewable. Hydroelectric dams and their related aluminium smelters tend to be situated in remote areas, and therefore provide economic activity where there would otherwise be none. Other aluminium smelters are located in areas where there is historically a natural surplus of energy for which there is insufficient economic local use.
For our tremendous Lower Churchill power - Labrador must be an ideal candidate. The fact that previous governments and the current administration has been unable to successfully attract under reasonable terms this type of industry only reflects regressive policy of developing the Lower Churchill for export.
As one reader of Sue's Blog pointed out - sarcastically - "Iceland has no choice: it either uses its electricity within Iceland, or it doesn't get used at all." I guess that's the answer then - when industry knows it must come to a jurisdiction to utilize hydro power - it will.
Thus Iceland has 3 aluminum smelters - Labrador has none and that wonderful Upper Churchill power has helped to create:
The first step in processing aluminum in Quebec employs close
to 4,800 people in plants whose capacity represents 23% of
the Province’s primary production.
Second and third processing activities, although significant,
are difficult to quantify because they take place in very
diverse sectors.
A study of industrial sub-contracting in Quebec (Sous-traitance
industrielle du Québec - STIQ) revealed that over 1,300
manufacturing facilities use aluminum in their products.
It should also be remembered that, while aluminum smelters
naturally tend to locate close to sources of electric power at
competitive prices, the transformation sector tends to locate
close to markets liable to receive its products.
Significant efforts have been made to promote aluminum
fabrication in Quebec, particularly in the research sector.
The industry has made a commitment to create 1,500 jobs
in the fabrication sector over the next 10 years.
It is time to stop bypassing Labrador as the industrial capitol of our province. When you consider the iron-ore deposits - Voisey's Bay minerals - potential uranium and other major mineral deposits - and add the Upper and Lower Churchill power potentials - it had to take complete mismanagement and inferior policy not to have achieved this by now.
If hydro and mineral resources were handled to make Labrador the primary beneficiary of the regional resources - we would not need Hebron to bring any Newfoundlander and Labradorian home - they would already be here - and we would be attracting workers from the rest of Canada here.
Do not allow the export of Lower Churchill power.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Important to take a stand on resource development rules...
VOCM and Tely polls...
VOCM question today:
Do you think government should release all the information it has on the Hebron deal?
Just before noon today - 59% no - 36% yes - 4% not sure...
The Tely question August 24th:
Should details of the MOU signed between the province and industry partners to develop the Hebron-Ben Nevis oil field be released to the public?
Final Results - 74% yes - 19% no - 7% undecided.
There is decidedly more wiggle room in the VOCM question - "all the info government has" versus the "MOU" details for the Tely.
It depends of course on how many times the same individual votes - party stacking - etc. Maybe the government is doing one of its own. Can we see the results if that is the case? If not will the government commit to doing a scientific poll on the idea - with - of course - a simple question?
It is very important that we make clear as a people that we want to be involved in the process - as it will include more wind deals - mining deals - and the Lower Churchill deal. If we give Danny a carte blanche mandate to negotiate and sign off as he sees fit - we are deliberately being ignorant - and trusting that one man cannot make mistakes or that no man or woman would ever do anything wrong through error or other circumstances.
I listened to Liberal candidate Gerry Tobin - Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans - talk about the Hebron MOU last week - and he suggested that the MHA's of the Official Opposition be allowed to view it in camera. Okay then what?
That's as bad as government's current lack of openness and accountability. Let's say the Libs see it - in confidence - and find something - what do they do? Advise in secret? This is almost as arrogant as Danny. How about this? Release it for the people to see and judge accordingly. Then let all parties put forth their problems and kudos for the MOU and the policy choices - and if opposed put forth what they would do under the same circumstances.
VOCM question today:
Do you think government should release all the information it has on the Hebron deal?
Just before noon today - 59% no - 36% yes - 4% not sure...
The Tely question August 24th:
Should details of the MOU signed between the province and industry partners to develop the Hebron-Ben Nevis oil field be released to the public?
Final Results - 74% yes - 19% no - 7% undecided.
There is decidedly more wiggle room in the VOCM question - "all the info government has" versus the "MOU" details for the Tely.
It depends of course on how many times the same individual votes - party stacking - etc. Maybe the government is doing one of its own. Can we see the results if that is the case? If not will the government commit to doing a scientific poll on the idea - with - of course - a simple question?
It is very important that we make clear as a people that we want to be involved in the process - as it will include more wind deals - mining deals - and the Lower Churchill deal. If we give Danny a carte blanche mandate to negotiate and sign off as he sees fit - we are deliberately being ignorant - and trusting that one man cannot make mistakes or that no man or woman would ever do anything wrong through error or other circumstances.
I listened to Liberal candidate Gerry Tobin - Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans - talk about the Hebron MOU last week - and he suggested that the MHA's of the Official Opposition be allowed to view it in camera. Okay then what?
That's as bad as government's current lack of openness and accountability. Let's say the Libs see it - in confidence - and find something - what do they do? Advise in secret? This is almost as arrogant as Danny. How about this? Release it for the people to see and judge accordingly. Then let all parties put forth their problems and kudos for the MOU and the policy choices - and if opposed put forth what they would do under the same circumstances.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Who needs MP's or MHA's - Get a Lobbyist
Despite the ignorance of Ryan Cleary and those who continue to quote him - lobbyists have to be registered in Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada.
Danny wanted to get rid of the Gary Ansteys of the world so he said we will have the legislature enact "lobbyist" legislation. Apparently that fell short when Dean MacDonald was lobbying for provincial funds for the fibre optic deal nevertheless there is a registry for everybody else.
In either case - seeing how Ryan and flunkies want to lay cards on the table let's see who has been and who is a lobbyist. Working the front-rooms in the back-room trying to get their clients some leverage with governments one way or the other. These are the people who have government's ear.
Who are they? Well many of them are politico's who have sucked up to some leader or party and are deemed to have a "close" relationship with a PM or Premier. Others are just our politicians - retired - who can do more for people after they get out.
For instance back in the Liberal days:
Gary Anstey was federally registered as a lobbyist for:
Kruger
Voisey's Bay
Petro-Canada
FPI
Husky Oil
Hibernia Management and Development
Iron Ore Company
North Atlantic Refiningand the list goes on...
Based on what was accomplished and all the perks and giveaways the people say the Liberals did under Tobin/Grimes et al. he basically wrote the Liberal Policy Book.
And these guys want a chance to do that again. Remember there was no provincial lobbyist registry at that time.
Winston Baker (remember him?)
He was registered as a lobbyist because some company wanted to buy the Newfoundland Dockyard Corporation.
Or how about Ed Roberts ( you know our Lieutenant Governor)
Well he has lobbied on behalf of the St. John's Port Corporation and in the registry was listed as a lobbyist for Mel Woodward's company (Coastal Shipping) from 1997 - 2005.
Then there's our Brian (Tobin) who is up there now lobbying for Rogers. He also lobbied on behalf of SeaRay dealers (boats and yachts) to avoid any retaliation from the US during the softwood lumber dispute. Of course he was also the lobbyist for the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association. (Dean were you ever the head of that?)Brian - the so called Liberal with the really good Tory connections.
And John Crosbie - he lobbied for Texada land Corporation a real estate developer in BC. They bought up thousands of acres of land in an environmentally important area. Residents of the area were in the process of trying to preserve it when the purchase occurred. So I guess Texada needed a hand to sell the property to government - federal or provincial.
And this is just the tip of that iceberg. Where is John Fitzgerald - the fellow we pay to get things done in Ottawa. You know set up meetings etc. - what is he doing? dodging lobbyists?
This is how it works people - your MP's are useless - get a lobbyist. Apparently Tim Powers an unelected spin doctor is seen to have more influence with the Prime Minister than Loyola Hearn our Minister? What about our Minister of Energy - what about Kathy Dunderdale? Can you get a meeting or what? Any chance Dean MacDonald or Ed Martin can get in there?
And what is Tim exactly lobbying for? Does he know what the yet unreleased energy plan says?
This is just the federal scene. Let's really look at who is being paid to influence politicians.
Danny wanted to get rid of the Gary Ansteys of the world so he said we will have the legislature enact "lobbyist" legislation. Apparently that fell short when Dean MacDonald was lobbying for provincial funds for the fibre optic deal nevertheless there is a registry for everybody else.
In either case - seeing how Ryan and flunkies want to lay cards on the table let's see who has been and who is a lobbyist. Working the front-rooms in the back-room trying to get their clients some leverage with governments one way or the other. These are the people who have government's ear.
Who are they? Well many of them are politico's who have sucked up to some leader or party and are deemed to have a "close" relationship with a PM or Premier. Others are just our politicians - retired - who can do more for people after they get out.
For instance back in the Liberal days:
Gary Anstey was federally registered as a lobbyist for:
Kruger
Voisey's Bay
Petro-Canada
FPI
Husky Oil
Hibernia Management and Development
Iron Ore Company
North Atlantic Refiningand the list goes on...
Based on what was accomplished and all the perks and giveaways the people say the Liberals did under Tobin/Grimes et al. he basically wrote the Liberal Policy Book.
And these guys want a chance to do that again. Remember there was no provincial lobbyist registry at that time.
Winston Baker (remember him?)
He was registered as a lobbyist because some company wanted to buy the Newfoundland Dockyard Corporation.
Or how about Ed Roberts ( you know our Lieutenant Governor)
Well he has lobbied on behalf of the St. John's Port Corporation and in the registry was listed as a lobbyist for Mel Woodward's company (Coastal Shipping) from 1997 - 2005.
Then there's our Brian (Tobin) who is up there now lobbying for Rogers. He also lobbied on behalf of SeaRay dealers (boats and yachts) to avoid any retaliation from the US during the softwood lumber dispute. Of course he was also the lobbyist for the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association. (Dean were you ever the head of that?)Brian - the so called Liberal with the really good Tory connections.
And John Crosbie - he lobbied for Texada land Corporation a real estate developer in BC. They bought up thousands of acres of land in an environmentally important area. Residents of the area were in the process of trying to preserve it when the purchase occurred. So I guess Texada needed a hand to sell the property to government - federal or provincial.
And this is just the tip of that iceberg. Where is John Fitzgerald - the fellow we pay to get things done in Ottawa. You know set up meetings etc. - what is he doing? dodging lobbyists?
This is how it works people - your MP's are useless - get a lobbyist. Apparently Tim Powers an unelected spin doctor is seen to have more influence with the Prime Minister than Loyola Hearn our Minister? What about our Minister of Energy - what about Kathy Dunderdale? Can you get a meeting or what? Any chance Dean MacDonald or Ed Martin can get in there?
And what is Tim exactly lobbying for? Does he know what the yet unreleased energy plan says?
This is just the federal scene. Let's really look at who is being paid to influence politicians.
When you try to take the feet out from under a citizen lobbying on behalf of people -unpaid - and in public - you should really remember who the real lobbyists are. You live in really big houses but they are made of glass.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Hey Labrador Opportunity knocks....
I have been interested in following the development of CVRD since its takeover of INCO.
Sue's Blog has run a couple of pieces on the structure of CVRD - its status as one of the largest iron-ore companies in the world - and the potential for Labrador outside Voisey's Bay and Nickel more so than with nickel giant INCO.
They also have a preference to set-up processing facilities closer to the ore body.
Today there another interesting piece on the business thinking of this company - and it may be great news for Labrador. It seems the company is not only interested in:
“As a mining, smelting and refining company, we produce usually pure nickel or intermediate products,” says Bill Kipkie, vice-president of CVRD Inco and general manager of CVRD Inco special projects.
“What we are looking for is to create additional value for the company beyond what you get by selling it on the London Metal Exchange (LME).
Read the Complete Story Here
Should be at the table with CVRD now - with power on the horizon and the immense ore bodies in Labrador - there must be some room for new value-added industries.
Sue's Blog has run a couple of pieces on the structure of CVRD - its status as one of the largest iron-ore companies in the world - and the potential for Labrador outside Voisey's Bay and Nickel more so than with nickel giant INCO.
They also have a preference to set-up processing facilities closer to the ore body.
Today there another interesting piece on the business thinking of this company - and it may be great news for Labrador. It seems the company is not only interested in:
“As a mining, smelting and refining company, we produce usually pure nickel or intermediate products,” says Bill Kipkie, vice-president of CVRD Inco and general manager of CVRD Inco special projects.
“What we are looking for is to create additional value for the company beyond what you get by selling it on the London Metal Exchange (LME).
Read the Complete Story Here
Should be at the table with CVRD now - with power on the horizon and the immense ore bodies in Labrador - there must be some room for new value-added industries.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
CVRD - 2007 investment release says little about Voisey's Bay
This is the latest discussion from CVRD on Voisey's Bay.
This was taken from their 2007 Investment Outline released yesterday. They plan to spend 6.3 billion on various projects - I could not find a dollar amount related to Voisey's Bay.
The Release is 8 pages long and this is the only reference to Voisey's Bay:
Voisey’s Bay, a nickel sulphide project at the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, began operations in September 2005, and is currently concluding its ramp up process, producing nickel concentrate processed at the smelters of Sudbury and Thompson. A study to build a processing plant is underway.
I did notice they are spending significant research dollars in the non-ferrous sector (this includes nickel) and of note they are testing a hydro-met process for a copper processing potential.
For the complete Release PRESS HERE
This was taken from their 2007 Investment Outline released yesterday. They plan to spend 6.3 billion on various projects - I could not find a dollar amount related to Voisey's Bay.
The Release is 8 pages long and this is the only reference to Voisey's Bay:
Voisey’s Bay, a nickel sulphide project at the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, began operations in September 2005, and is currently concluding its ramp up process, producing nickel concentrate processed at the smelters of Sudbury and Thompson. A study to build a processing plant is underway.
I did notice they are spending significant research dollars in the non-ferrous sector (this includes nickel) and of note they are testing a hydro-met process for a copper processing potential.
For the complete Release PRESS HERE
A mistake or a sign of things to come?
CVRD the company that purchased INCO has an interesting philosophy that Labradorians may be interested in.
Currently they are in contract negotiations with workers in Sudbury and:
Below you will find a Sue's Blog post from last week.
Now the Resource Invester Online
says this:
CVRD is in the detailing phase for the plant at Voisey's Bay and is considering investments at the Thompson mine in Manitoba, as well as PT Inco in Indonesia.
This quote from a story in the Northern Life
Management from Xstrata and CVRD made it clear after they successfully completed historic deals to take over Falconbridge and Inco, respectfully, last summer and fall they would work together to cut costs at Sudbury operations, said Grylls.
Most of the speculation has been over lowering transportation costs and processing ore at facilities closer to their respective mines.
Will CVRD look to Labrador as a possibility for the processing facility?
Currently they are in contract negotiations with workers in Sudbury and:
Below you will find a Sue's Blog post from last week.
Now the Resource Invester Online
says this:
CVRD is in the detailing phase for the plant at Voisey's Bay and is considering investments at the Thompson mine in Manitoba, as well as PT Inco in Indonesia.
This quote from a story in the Northern Life
Management from Xstrata and CVRD made it clear after they successfully completed historic deals to take over Falconbridge and Inco, respectfully, last summer and fall they would work together to cut costs at Sudbury operations, said Grylls.
Most of the speculation has been over lowering transportation costs and processing ore at facilities closer to their respective mines.
Will CVRD look to Labrador as a possibility for the processing facility?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)