And so the fiasco which is the Muskrat Falls deal with Emera continues.
So how about we ask the following questions:
1. Would Quebec agree to a 20-20 deal that is 20% cost = 20% power output - considering overruns would be at our cost not theirs?
2. Would the construction be cheaper with Quebec?
3. Which company would give us better opportunities into the marketplace?
4. What about the ownership of the transmission route?
In my estimation a deal with Quebec would be more beneficial and could accommodate the Gull Island component as well.
In my estimation a deal with Quebec could give us greater returns at a lower cost.
In my estimation the only thing that is really different about the two potential partners is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Quebec are Crown Corporations owned by the people - whereas Emera is private.
That means the rich bugs get more and the people get less.
Straight forward explanation for a disaster of a project.
Better than all of the above - use the power in Labrador with industrial partners.
30 years of gouging so that particular interests make a fortune. That ladies and gentlemen is our history. Congratulations to the current nitwits who are facilitating the giveaway.
Showing posts with label aluminum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aluminum. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Goodbye Canada and Corruption - Hello Iceland
A lesson from Iceland - I have added bolding to areas of the Story.
You must love the People First approach.
Iceland with half our population and less natural resources - they are doing fine.
Iceland’s economy suffered a meltdown in 2008, with its banks defaulting on $85 billion. In 2009 its citizens took to the streets and demanded action from the government against those they saw as responsible for the crisis. The government responded, putting people before markets, and now Iceland’s economy is outgrowing the euro one and, on average, the developed world.
Bloomberg reported that after it was determined in October 2008 that the banks could not be saved, the government intervened. It ring-fenced domestic accounts and shut out international creditors. Iceland’s central bank prevented the sell off of krona through capital controls, and new banks were created that were controlled by the state. Then the government and the state-controlled banks agreed that amounts in excess of 110% of home values would be forgiven on mortgages.
The country’s supreme court also ruled in 2010 that debts indexed to foreign currencies were illegal, which saved households from having to cover losses resulting from drops in the value of the krona.
An Icelandic Financial Services Association report cited by Bloomberg pointed out that the country’s banks have forgiven loans amounting to 13% of Iceland’s GDP. That lessened the debt load of the population.
Lars Christensen, chief emerging markets economist at Danske Bank in Copenhagen, was quoted saying, “You could safely say that Iceland holds the world record in household debt relief. Iceland followed the textbook example of what is required in a crisis. Any economist would agree with that.”
Not only that, but the cost to insure against an Icelandic default is about the same as to insure against a credit event in Belgium. And Icelanders are no longer eager to join the eurozone. Most would rather stay solo. Housing as an element of the consumer price index is only down about 3% from what it was in September 2008, just prior to the collapse.
Fitch Ratings just last week also conceded that Iceland’s approach has worked, raising the country’s rating to investment grade with a stable outlook. At the time it said that Iceland’s “unorthodox crisis policy response has succeeded.”
Thorolfur Matthiasson, an economics professor at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik, was quoted saying, “The lesson to be learned from Iceland’s crisis is that if other countries think it’s necessary to write down debts, they should look at how successful the 110% agreement was here. It’s the broadest agreement that’s been undertaken.”
According to Christensen at Danske Bank, “the bottom line is that if households are insolvent, then the banks just have to go along with it, regardless of the interests of the banks.”
You must love the People First approach.
Iceland with half our population and less natural resources - they are doing fine.
Icelandic Economy Bounces Back From Brink
Debt relief put people’s needs ahead of markets
Iceland’s economy suffered a meltdown in 2008, with its banks defaulting on $85 billion. In 2009 its citizens took to the streets and demanded action from the government against those they saw as responsible for the crisis. The government responded, putting people before markets, and now Iceland’s economy is outgrowing the euro one and, on average, the developed world.
Bloomberg reported that after it was determined in October 2008 that the banks could not be saved, the government intervened. It ring-fenced domestic accounts and shut out international creditors. Iceland’s central bank prevented the sell off of krona through capital controls, and new banks were created that were controlled by the state. Then the government and the state-controlled banks agreed that amounts in excess of 110% of home values would be forgiven on mortgages.
The country’s supreme court also ruled in 2010 that debts indexed to foreign currencies were illegal, which saved households from having to cover losses resulting from drops in the value of the krona.
An Icelandic Financial Services Association report cited by Bloomberg pointed out that the country’s banks have forgiven loans amounting to 13% of Iceland’s GDP. That lessened the debt load of the population.
In addition, the government is investigating, and prosecuting,
numerous prominent figures from the meltdown. Currently more than 200
face criminal charges and a special prosecutor has said as many as 90
may be indicted.
Lars Christensen, chief emerging markets economist at Danske Bank in Copenhagen, was quoted saying, “You could safely say that Iceland holds the world record in household debt relief. Iceland followed the textbook example of what is required in a crisis. Any economist would agree with that.”
The result? According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, Iceland’s economy is in line to expand 2.4% both this
year and next, after growth of 2.9% last year and in the wake of
shrinkage of 6.7% in 2009. In contrast, the OECD estimated in November
that the euro area will only expand by 0.2% and the OECD area by 1.6% in
2012.
Not only that, but the cost to insure against an Icelandic default is about the same as to insure against a credit event in Belgium. And Icelanders are no longer eager to join the eurozone. Most would rather stay solo. Housing as an element of the consumer price index is only down about 3% from what it was in September 2008, just prior to the collapse.
Fitch Ratings just last week also conceded that Iceland’s approach has worked, raising the country’s rating to investment grade with a stable outlook. At the time it said that Iceland’s “unorthodox crisis policy response has succeeded.”
Thorolfur Matthiasson, an economics professor at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik, was quoted saying, “The lesson to be learned from Iceland’s crisis is that if other countries think it’s necessary to write down debts, they should look at how successful the 110% agreement was here. It’s the broadest agreement that’s been undertaken.”
According to Christensen at Danske Bank, “the bottom line is that if households are insolvent, then the banks just have to go along with it, regardless of the interests of the banks.”
Monday, January 16, 2012
One by One - What did Danny Williams mean?
"Mr.
Speaker, would the Premier confirm what was told to the private meeting in
Labrador, that at the end of construction of this multi-billion development of
our resource, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will only get fifty - fifty, Mr.
Speaker - long-term jobs while Quebec will use more of our cheap power to
create thousands of new jobs for Quebecers?"
The above statement was made by Danny Williams in the House of Assembly when he was the Leader of the Opposition.
Please advise the public of Newfoundland and Labrador what you meant by this question?
What long-term jobs will Newfoundland and Labrador get after the construction of the Muskrat Falls project?
How many long-term jobs will be created in Nova Scotia?
What have you done any differently with this Emera Deal?
What exactly were you opposing Mr. Williams?
What were you implying?
What is the percentage of long-term jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians compared to what will be created for Nova Scotians?
Will the media ask these questions? It is for the record right?
The above statement was made by Danny Williams in the House of Assembly when he was the Leader of the Opposition.
Please advise the public of Newfoundland and Labrador what you meant by this question?
What long-term jobs will Newfoundland and Labrador get after the construction of the Muskrat Falls project?
How many long-term jobs will be created in Nova Scotia?
What have you done any differently with this Emera Deal?
What exactly were you opposing Mr. Williams?
What were you implying?
What is the percentage of long-term jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians compared to what will be created for Nova Scotians?
Will the media ask these questions? It is for the record right?
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Williams must share Critics Concerns about the Emera deal. Right?
Please read the various statements below and ask yourself - does Williams share the concerns of critics regarding the Muskrat Falls development? The statements are all by Danny Williams. What's up Premier Dunderdale?
Isn’t is
a fact that Section 23(1)(c) of the act gives you and your government virtual
veto power to deny the public information about any negotiations...including
the Lower Churchill?
Then
comes the important one as well, one that is equally important: information
about negotiations carried on by or for a public body for the government of
this Province. That is the Voisey’s Bay clause. That is the Lower Churchill
clause. That is the one that this government can use to prevent disclosure of
negotiations. Their answer to that is: Well, you cannot disclose the
negotiations. If negotiations are going on in private, it is not right to get
out and disclose those negotiations. You cannot do that. Well I submit, Mr.
Speaker, we should do that. The people of this Province have a right to know
what is going on. It should not be done behind closed doors. It should not be a
fait accompli. It should not be signed, sealed and delivered and then rammed
down their throats after it is all over. That is too late.
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.
Mr.
Speaker, by 2010 the Government of Quebec is forecasting a shortage of power
that will leave them unable to meet their commercial obligations. Cheap power
is the foundation of their energy plan and their key to economic development.
One would think, therefore, that Quebec’s shortage of power would put our
negotiating team in the driver’s seat during negotiations on the Lower
Churchill. With such obvious negotiating power, Mr. Speaker, could the Premier
please tell the people why he did not use the Lower Churchill as a bargaining
lever to address the inequities of the Upper Churchill contract? Would the
Premier explain why he quit on the objective of every single Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador since the deal was signed over thirty years ago?
What is
this Premier going to do? He is going to give away our cheap, our renewable
energy, rather than create jobs in this Province.
One, that there is no redress on the Upper
Churchill, that the Premier and his government have quit on us and have quit on
this issue. Two, the Premier failed to use Quebec shortage of power in the next
ten years as a lever to renegotiate the Upper Churchill.
If we do
a Lower Churchill project, the people of the Province need to know one thing,
that from the first day we sell one megawatt hour from that project we will be
getting the full market value of the power as though we were selling it in any
other market available in North America.
Mr. Speaker, would the minister please confirm
that he stands by that statement...?
...that there is no guarantee of 100 per cent ownership of the project
by Newfoundland and Labrador; that there is no guarantee of 100 per cent
management and control of the project...
What
role, Premier, has the Lower Churchill Development Corporation played in these
Lower Churchill negotiations with Quebec?
... so therefore his answer is yes, he would proceed with a deal on the
Lower Churchill without seeking any redress or a better deal on the Upper
Churchill...
Mr.
Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Would the Premier tell the people of
our Province why he is proceeding with this deal when the following are against
it: former PC Premier Brian Peckford...
We have
an ever increasing list of people who oppose this deal on the Lower Churchill.
Two former premiers, Tom Rideout and Brian Peckford ...The least you could do
is show some respect for two former premiers of this Province.
Will the Premier please confirm that the
financing arrangements for this project will saddle our Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador with 100 per cent of the cost overruns?
...can
the Premier please confirm that, in fact, most of the design and engineering
work on the Lower Churchill will be done in Quebec?
Mr.
Speaker, would the Premier confirm what was told to the private meeting in
Labrador, that at the end of construction of this multi-billion development of
our resource, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will only get fifty - fifty, Mr.
Speaker - long-term jobs while Quebec will use more of our cheap power to
create thousands of new jobs for Quebecers?
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Say no to Emera Deal while you still can!
I have heard from people all over Newfoundland and Labrador who are against the Emera deal.
The big question is how do we stop this deal when Kathy Dunderdale and her government are moving ahead while ignoring the concerns of anybody who is opposed?
Start by signing the Petition CLICK HERE
Please send this address to any one you know is opposed to the deal or is not satisfied with lack of communication on the deal.
The big question is how do we stop this deal when Kathy Dunderdale and her government are moving ahead while ignoring the concerns of anybody who is opposed?
Start by signing the Petition CLICK HERE
Please send this address to any one you know is opposed to the deal or is not satisfied with lack of communication on the deal.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Iceland continues to Move Forward - our MHA`s should complete Orientation there!
From Iceland Review
In the third quarter of 2011, 10,700 people on average were unemployed in Iceland, which is 5.9 percent of the workforce, according to Statistics Iceland. Unemployment measured 5.6 percent among men and 6.2 percent among women.
From the third quarter of 2010 to the second quarter of 2011, the number of unemployed workers dropped by approximately 1,000...
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Muskrat Red Flags - why Dunderdale must be STOPPED
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are told Muskrat is the "best" option for power for the Island. This has been questioned successfully by many experienced and knowledgeable people - yet there is no believable response from Nalcor or government.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are told that Nova Scotia will receive cheaper power from the project than they will. Somehow this is necessary to build markets. Why would any government charge its own people double to supply other jurisdictions with subsidized power?
There are many red flags - more than were obvious during the Upper Churchill yet some 35 years later - this government is willing to do a deal that is worse than the Upper Churchill. Stop this deal - stop the Dunderdale government.
Don`t forget - this government has been unable to forecast oil and revenues accurately on an annual basis -let alone 20 years out.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Dunderdale=Giveaway of Resources=Cheap power for Nova Scotia=Loss of our Future
The Population of the Province is down again from last year.
Where's the need for power?
Industry gone - people continue to go - where's the increase?
There will continue to be a loss of people - go to Nova Scotia for cheaper power rates and industry being developed there.
If you are looking for ship building - go to Nova Scotia.
If you are looking to fish - go to Iceland or go to China for processing jobs.
If you are looking for industry like pulp and paper, smelting, aerospace, auto sector, just move to Ontario and Quebec.
If Muskrat goes ahead - we will have set ourselves on a path of no return. All will be lost.
Dunderdale said last night in the debate that nobody has been able to show them where their figures are wrong.
Is their prediction on oil prices 20 years out - a fact?
Are their predictions regarding "need" for new power facts?
What a joke.
I can say that - although oil kept us away from most recessionary problems - doubling electricity rates will cripple business and industry and poison discretionary spending by consumers. It may very well cause a local recession.
The Premier also forgot the criticisms of the Independent Review Panel. Did they question anything?
The only scary thing in this election is the Muskrat Falls deal. It must be stopped.
The best comment in the debate was from Aylward when he suggested the Ms. Dunderdale should be the Premier of Nova Scotia. That was appropriate based on the Muskrat deal proposed.
Everybody is wrong except Nalcor, PC Cabinet, and Navigant.
Be prepared Newfoundland and Labrador - wait until Hydro HAS to be privatized and Gull Island will have to be developed by private interests. Of course they will also claim this new power will have to go through Quebec. Sold out!
How much time did the Premier spend talking about the benefits to Labrador?
Where's the need for power?
Industry gone - people continue to go - where's the increase?
There will continue to be a loss of people - go to Nova Scotia for cheaper power rates and industry being developed there.
If you are looking for ship building - go to Nova Scotia.
If you are looking to fish - go to Iceland or go to China for processing jobs.
If you are looking for industry like pulp and paper, smelting, aerospace, auto sector, just move to Ontario and Quebec.
If Muskrat goes ahead - we will have set ourselves on a path of no return. All will be lost.
Dunderdale said last night in the debate that nobody has been able to show them where their figures are wrong.
Is their prediction on oil prices 20 years out - a fact?
Are their predictions regarding "need" for new power facts?
What a joke.
I can say that - although oil kept us away from most recessionary problems - doubling electricity rates will cripple business and industry and poison discretionary spending by consumers. It may very well cause a local recession.
The Premier also forgot the criticisms of the Independent Review Panel. Did they question anything?
The only scary thing in this election is the Muskrat Falls deal. It must be stopped.
The best comment in the debate was from Aylward when he suggested the Ms. Dunderdale should be the Premier of Nova Scotia. That was appropriate based on the Muskrat deal proposed.
Everybody is wrong except Nalcor, PC Cabinet, and Navigant.
Be prepared Newfoundland and Labrador - wait until Hydro HAS to be privatized and Gull Island will have to be developed by private interests. Of course they will also claim this new power will have to go through Quebec. Sold out!
How much time did the Premier spend talking about the benefits to Labrador?
Monday, September 26, 2011
Paddy Cake Paddy Cake - Show me the Proof - Iceland fishery - aluminum Booming
Paddy Daly - "Iceland is Bankrupt"
Will he withdraw the statement?
Will he withdraw the statement?
Read the Story below of today's date from the Fish Update Publication
Iceland fish exports on rise
Published: 26 September, 2011
ICELAND exported fish and seafood products to the world totalling 647 million euros - or £569 million sterling - during the first six months of this year, new figures have shown.
Seafood now accounts 37 per cent of the country's total exports which amounted to 1.729-billion euros - or £1.5 billion sterling. But the biggest foreign revenue earner is still high value aluminium and ferro silicon. Iceland also earns revenue for the export of ships, fishing vessels and agricultural products.
In other statistics the value of fish catches by Icelandic vessels increased by 13.7 per cent last year from 2009. The value of the catch amounted to 131-billion kroners (£698 million sterling or 621-million euros) in 2010, compared to 115-billion kroners (£613-million or 537-million euros the a year before.
This increase can largely be attributed to the country's most valuable fish stock, cod, since the value of this catch increased by a fifth and amounted to a total value of 44.6 billion kroners (£245-million or 200-million euros) last year. Cod catches were up by 10,000 tons to 160,000 tons, thanks to higher quotas.
Moreover, the value of pelagic catches other than herring, capelin and blue whiting almost doubled last year from the year before and this was largely due to the increased fishing of mackerel. About 40 per cent of the catch went directly from being fished into domestic processing last year.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Why Kathy Dunderdale and the government must be stopped this October
Why the Emera deal will not work and will leave us bankrupt. What the politicians and "experts" will not tell you. Press Here
Friday, August 19, 2011
Kevin Noble thinks Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will listen to Joey twice
I am absolutely shocked at the lows to which Kevin Noble will sink.
He just finished his expected call to Paddy Daley on Back-Talk and actually said he was doing a "Joey", by saying he was reducing the information to the simplest possible and then just repeat it and repeat it and people will follow.
Let me guess Kevin what's next - "These are our falls, this is our power, this is our resource".
Yes Kevin - the one and only thing you got right was the comparison to Joey and the Upper Churchill.
Both deals are devastating giveaways and make certain people rich - while Newfoundland and Labrador gets a very short end of the stick.
Then the actor tried to link the development of Muskrat Falls to a parking lot - and although we only have one space now - beware in the future we will own the lot. Yes I must say that is exactly the logic used on the Upper Churchill.
Outside of my obvious disgust at political prostitution - Noble actually managed to prove that this deal is the same as the Upper Churchill - while trying to promote the project for government.
In this case Kevin your acting skills failed you. Try again.
He just finished his expected call to Paddy Daley on Back-Talk and actually said he was doing a "Joey", by saying he was reducing the information to the simplest possible and then just repeat it and repeat it and people will follow.
Let me guess Kevin what's next - "These are our falls, this is our power, this is our resource".
Yes Kevin - the one and only thing you got right was the comparison to Joey and the Upper Churchill.
Both deals are devastating giveaways and make certain people rich - while Newfoundland and Labrador gets a very short end of the stick.
Then the actor tried to link the development of Muskrat Falls to a parking lot - and although we only have one space now - beware in the future we will own the lot. Yes I must say that is exactly the logic used on the Upper Churchill.
Outside of my obvious disgust at political prostitution - Noble actually managed to prove that this deal is the same as the Upper Churchill - while trying to promote the project for government.
In this case Kevin your acting skills failed you. Try again.
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Lower Churchill Project could lead to loss of Sovereignty
Sovereignty you question? Yes Sovereignty!
Unfortunately we voted ourselves out of complete independence when we "joined" Canada. However there is still this little small item remaining that of a province.
You and I have listened to musings of creating one Atlantic Province called Atlantica. Many business people and some politicians have really entertained this.
From a business perspective - many elite billionaires dream about the super province wherein the resources of Newfoundland and particularly Labrador can be stripped from this geography and delivered to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for processing and wealth. A corporate dream that would see Newfoundlanders and Labradorians flock to work in the Maritime region - leaving the province with no specific purpose other than camps of workers to extract resource after resource and the power to fuel industry will come from Labrador and delivered to the new Maritime business mecca. Almost like Great Britain when it sent fishermen for a season but would not allow settlement.
If you cannot imagine this - then you could not have imagined we would give up our Dominion status and sell-out to the mighty Canada. But - it did happen.
Since that time we have not enjoyed steady population and industrial growth - rather we have had decimation of resource after resource - and the decimation of our rural communities and population of youth.
We have seen naive politicians make deal after deal with global corporations - that always placed the needs of our people last. We have never enjoyed full benefit from any resource we have exploited.
Our history is in the fishery - but the fishery is almost dead - this after turning management over to Ottawa. This was a renewable resource - a food basket of the world - now it is a just a fraction of what it once was. Remember in 1992 it was only to take 10 years to recover - where is that recovery? Where are the 40,000 people it took with it? Where are the communities? Where are the fishplants? Disgrace!
Then there was the mines - the great wealth of minerals - hauled out truck by truck ship by ship train by train to be processed elsewhere - taking the high paying jobs and skilled workers with it. Communities stripped of their wealth without an heritage fund - left with nothing but a polluted place. Disgrace!
Our forestry - almost stripped bare - and then as we finally forced reforestation and sustainable harvesting - we lost the industry it fuelled. Two paper mills gone. Discrace!
Lastly our power - the tremendous Upper Churchill potential lost to generations of our people - nothing to show for it - not industry - not jobs. Where parts of Labrador continue to rely on thermal generation and not an aluminum smelter in sight. 5000 mw's fuelling the Quebec economy and fuelling Hydro-Quebec the most powerful of power companies. For years losing equalization based on revenues we could not even collect.
Now Dunderdale and the Tories feel compelled to export another block of power - this time subsidizing it for Nova Scotia and others - while not delivering this power to all of Labrador - and not one MW for industry in the Big Land. Dunderdale claiming she is willing to listen to real arguments opposed to the Emera giveaway - but as Danny would say "nothing could be further from the truth". Dunderdale drilling down with due diligence so she may be all over a file - she does not have a real clue about.
Tell me something Ms. Dunderdale - who or what is the Atlantica Centre for Energy ?
What of the description:
The Atlantica Centre for Energy is an industry association dedicated to the sustainable growth and economic development of the regional energy sector. Originally centered in southwestern New Brunswick, the Centre's board has expanded to include leading energy professionals and national professional services companies in Maine, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland & Labrador and Ontario.
The Centre serves as a bridge between corporations and the community to help realize the opportunities associated with the energy sector in Atlantic Canada and the American Northeast. It provides a meeting ground for government, the education and research sectors, and the community at large to foster partnerships and engagement in energy-related issues and policy development.
Who is benefiting from power found in Labrador? Why would that be fuelling an Atlantica vision? How is it we benefit by creating wealth outside our province?
How about their vision for the Lower Churchill found HERE
I can tell you this Premier Dunderdale and Cabinet - what you are doing with the Lower Churchill will make the architects of the Upper Churchill look like patriots to this province and her people. Are you that naive - or are you that involved?
Again I remain amazed at the PC members so willing to become part of this - the worst giveaway in our history - the day we sold our province.
Unfortunately we voted ourselves out of complete independence when we "joined" Canada. However there is still this little small item remaining that of a province.
You and I have listened to musings of creating one Atlantic Province called Atlantica. Many business people and some politicians have really entertained this.
From a business perspective - many elite billionaires dream about the super province wherein the resources of Newfoundland and particularly Labrador can be stripped from this geography and delivered to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for processing and wealth. A corporate dream that would see Newfoundlanders and Labradorians flock to work in the Maritime region - leaving the province with no specific purpose other than camps of workers to extract resource after resource and the power to fuel industry will come from Labrador and delivered to the new Maritime business mecca. Almost like Great Britain when it sent fishermen for a season but would not allow settlement.
If you cannot imagine this - then you could not have imagined we would give up our Dominion status and sell-out to the mighty Canada. But - it did happen.
Since that time we have not enjoyed steady population and industrial growth - rather we have had decimation of resource after resource - and the decimation of our rural communities and population of youth.
We have seen naive politicians make deal after deal with global corporations - that always placed the needs of our people last. We have never enjoyed full benefit from any resource we have exploited.
Our history is in the fishery - but the fishery is almost dead - this after turning management over to Ottawa. This was a renewable resource - a food basket of the world - now it is a just a fraction of what it once was. Remember in 1992 it was only to take 10 years to recover - where is that recovery? Where are the 40,000 people it took with it? Where are the communities? Where are the fishplants? Disgrace!
Then there was the mines - the great wealth of minerals - hauled out truck by truck ship by ship train by train to be processed elsewhere - taking the high paying jobs and skilled workers with it. Communities stripped of their wealth without an heritage fund - left with nothing but a polluted place. Disgrace!
Our forestry - almost stripped bare - and then as we finally forced reforestation and sustainable harvesting - we lost the industry it fuelled. Two paper mills gone. Discrace!
Lastly our power - the tremendous Upper Churchill potential lost to generations of our people - nothing to show for it - not industry - not jobs. Where parts of Labrador continue to rely on thermal generation and not an aluminum smelter in sight. 5000 mw's fuelling the Quebec economy and fuelling Hydro-Quebec the most powerful of power companies. For years losing equalization based on revenues we could not even collect.
Now Dunderdale and the Tories feel compelled to export another block of power - this time subsidizing it for Nova Scotia and others - while not delivering this power to all of Labrador - and not one MW for industry in the Big Land. Dunderdale claiming she is willing to listen to real arguments opposed to the Emera giveaway - but as Danny would say "nothing could be further from the truth". Dunderdale drilling down with due diligence so she may be all over a file - she does not have a real clue about.
Tell me something Ms. Dunderdale - who or what is the Atlantica Centre for Energy ?
What of the description:
The Atlantica Centre for Energy is an industry association dedicated to the sustainable growth and economic development of the regional energy sector. Originally centered in southwestern New Brunswick, the Centre's board has expanded to include leading energy professionals and national professional services companies in Maine, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland & Labrador and Ontario.
The Centre serves as a bridge between corporations and the community to help realize the opportunities associated with the energy sector in Atlantic Canada and the American Northeast. It provides a meeting ground for government, the education and research sectors, and the community at large to foster partnerships and engagement in energy-related issues and policy development.
Who is benefiting from power found in Labrador? Why would that be fuelling an Atlantica vision? How is it we benefit by creating wealth outside our province?
How about their vision for the Lower Churchill found HERE
I can tell you this Premier Dunderdale and Cabinet - what you are doing with the Lower Churchill will make the architects of the Upper Churchill look like patriots to this province and her people. Are you that naive - or are you that involved?
Again I remain amazed at the PC members so willing to become part of this - the worst giveaway in our history - the day we sold our province.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
The Perfect Storm Dunderdale/Smallwood - Stop the Carnage
Today I write one of the most somber thoughts - I have ever had.
I am very afraid for Newfoundland and Labrador. The perfect political storm is forming and if we - as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - do not take severe and immediate action - our place may be lost.
Kathy Dunderdale inherited the post of Premier - and since the swearing in she has shown everything but leadership. Yes her ego is doing quite well - she seems to enjoy being the woman in power - but only in controlled and friendly environments. Dunderdale is uncomfortable dealing with the people - and she prefers not to do it.
The media and ordinary citizens are the enemy and she must find "friends" in other places.
Dunderdale relies on being recognized by people like Harper and Oil executives and relies on people like Ed Martin (Nalcor) to remind her that she is strong and doing the right things.
Hard to know how she is doing with Cabinet - these MHA's are so desperate to keep a portfolio - that otherwise independent people are making absurd excuses for policy failures.
Either Kathy Dunderdale is a complete political fraud or she is completely incompetent. You see Kathy Dunderdale hung off Danny's every word and move. She supported his position that unelected Premiers should not do major resource deals. She fought hard for that while in Opposition. Dunderdale basked in Danny's glory as he lowered flags, took on the feds, and politically condemned Harper. When Danny asked - she walked with Siobhan Coady door to door - to make the point that Harper must not be trusted and if he ever got a majority - Canada - particularly Newfoundland and Labrador would be in trouble. When Danny spoke - Kathy backed him up - she would call talk shows and reiterate Danny's points and talk about his greatness. When Danny bailed on our health care system and treated his illness in the USA - she was sent out to take the awkward questions and defend his decision. While she took over the Premier's role during Williams's recovery - she did nothing to change the course.
Then Kathy became Premier - and realized that she was the boss. If you think Williams was vindictive and vengeful - look out world - here comes Kathy.
The only problem is - her anger is toward the people. She adopted Williams dictatorial style without having his abilities or education (formal or street). If we are to believe Williams - the very first thing Kathy did as she took office is cut the former Premier off. For what purpose? Dunderdale hung on every word and action of Williams and now - he is not worthy of advice?
If Williams is to be believed - he recently stated publicly that hydro power from Labrador should have the right to go through Quebec and he felt this should be accomplished to allow this province to have the best opportunity to benefit from these resources. What is going on? Do we know anything really about this proposed development in the Big Land? The answer is no.
I have listened to Kathy Dunderdale speak on the Lower Churchill several times and she simply does not know enough on this potential to make decisions. Then we have to rely on the "experts" she relies on. What experts? The bureaucrats that would like to see hydro privatized? Nalcor executives who appear annoyed at having to answer questions? The companies that stand to gain short and long-term fortunes from the resource? One thing is for sure - Dunderdale is not listening to the people and she is ignoring many citizens of varying backgrounds who are warning - that this deal is bad - very bad.
Then there is Kathy's new appreciation, respect and adulation of Stephen Harper.
You see - this is not possible if you believe that Kathy actually believed and stood by Danny in his assessment of Harper. If she simply went along with Williams and was opposed to the ABC campaign - then she would have asked you and me to support ABC under false pretences.
Stephen Harper will only provide a loan guarantee to this province if it benefits other provinces. In fact the decimation of Newfoundland and Labrador resources to the benefit of other jurisdictions suits Harper just fine. This is how it has always been in Canada - and under Harper it will get worse.
Tonight as Dunderdale speaks to Harper - she may very well get the reversal on the closure of the marine rescue sub-centre - and this to keep the relationship intact long enough to rid Labrador of its industrial future.
The Emera deal is happening under very similar conditions to that of the Upper Churchill fiasco. A leader - Kathy Dunderdale - like Smallwood - who was satisfied to get compliments from those in the world of the corporate elite.
1. Joey sold the water rights in order to promote national unity and further secure Newfoundland's place in Canada. Kathy in essence is promoting the same ideas.
2. Joey quote:
“Our danger, so it seems to me, is that of nursing delusions of grandeur. We remember the stories of small states that valiantly preserved their national independence and developed their own proud culture, but we tend to overlook the fact that comparison of Newfoundland with them is ludicrous. We are not a nation. We are merely a medium size municipality, a mere miniature borough of a large city.”
Kathy has this mentality and believes we need others to develop and control our resources. This is the same thinking that went into the Upper Churchill.
* Just a quick note - Iceland - is doing just fine after the global economic meltdown and will probably fair better than fellow European nations.
3. Joey's continued assertion that the Upper Churchill deal was a good one, good for Canada, good for Newfoundland (Labrador), he'd say these are our resources, this is our falls, this is our water. Kathy is doing the same thing and once again we are heading for a catastrophic giveaway of our resources and worse dragging us into debt - which is not sustained by the market but rather by you and me on our power bills.
4. They both also harped on the tens of thousands of person-hours of work that will be created during construction. This was good for the companies that made a killing off the development and then walked away money in pocket - and shag Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Are we expecting businesses that stand to gain tens of millions - hundreds of millions are going to oppose the development? No they are going to cheer it on. They are not responsible for the future of our province. They are not responsible for the well being of our people and communities.
Naivety and personal satisfaction ruled the deal for Joey and it is ruling the deal for Kathy.
The media is not showing any real interest in the fact that we have no proof that this is a good deal - and that other options were considered. We remain absent of the proof that the Lower Churchill could not be developed for industrial development in Labrador. We have been told for years that industry demands subsidized power rates from such a development. Even if that is true - we are now going to subsidize power to Nova Scotia without one long-term industrial job created. If we are willing to subsidize lower power rates - are we not better off subsidizing it for long term jobs in Labrador?
There is no question that we are on the road to repeat one of the worst resource deals in history. If we allow Dunderdale to continue - we will repeat the Upper Churchill contract.
The only difference nowadays is that social media allows people to have their objections posted - recorded on line for the next generation to view. Sadly being able to say "I told you so" will provide little solace to our children.
What will you do to stop this disaster?
How many times must resources from this province benefit everybody but us?
How many times will the rest of Canada reap the lions share of benefits from our resources?
Do you believe any companies made fortunes from our fishery? What have we to show for it?
Do you believe any companies made fortunes from our minerals? What have we to show for it?
Do you believe any companies made fortunes from the Upper Churchill? What have we to show for it?
Do you believe any companies made fortunes from our Forests? What have we to show for that?
Despite our great wealth in natural resources - arguably more per capita than any other jurisdiction in North America; why has our population remained stagnant and aging? Why do our people have to leave to find gainful employment?
What happened to our shipyard? What's happening with Marystown? What happened to the federal ship-building contract? What happened to Bell Island? Where is our iron ore processed?
Please stop this carnage.
I am very afraid for Newfoundland and Labrador. The perfect political storm is forming and if we - as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - do not take severe and immediate action - our place may be lost.
Kathy Dunderdale inherited the post of Premier - and since the swearing in she has shown everything but leadership. Yes her ego is doing quite well - she seems to enjoy being the woman in power - but only in controlled and friendly environments. Dunderdale is uncomfortable dealing with the people - and she prefers not to do it.
The media and ordinary citizens are the enemy and she must find "friends" in other places.
Dunderdale relies on being recognized by people like Harper and Oil executives and relies on people like Ed Martin (Nalcor) to remind her that she is strong and doing the right things.
Hard to know how she is doing with Cabinet - these MHA's are so desperate to keep a portfolio - that otherwise independent people are making absurd excuses for policy failures.
Either Kathy Dunderdale is a complete political fraud or she is completely incompetent. You see Kathy Dunderdale hung off Danny's every word and move. She supported his position that unelected Premiers should not do major resource deals. She fought hard for that while in Opposition. Dunderdale basked in Danny's glory as he lowered flags, took on the feds, and politically condemned Harper. When Danny asked - she walked with Siobhan Coady door to door - to make the point that Harper must not be trusted and if he ever got a majority - Canada - particularly Newfoundland and Labrador would be in trouble. When Danny spoke - Kathy backed him up - she would call talk shows and reiterate Danny's points and talk about his greatness. When Danny bailed on our health care system and treated his illness in the USA - she was sent out to take the awkward questions and defend his decision. While she took over the Premier's role during Williams's recovery - she did nothing to change the course.
Then Kathy became Premier - and realized that she was the boss. If you think Williams was vindictive and vengeful - look out world - here comes Kathy.
The only problem is - her anger is toward the people. She adopted Williams dictatorial style without having his abilities or education (formal or street). If we are to believe Williams - the very first thing Kathy did as she took office is cut the former Premier off. For what purpose? Dunderdale hung on every word and action of Williams and now - he is not worthy of advice?
If Williams is to be believed - he recently stated publicly that hydro power from Labrador should have the right to go through Quebec and he felt this should be accomplished to allow this province to have the best opportunity to benefit from these resources. What is going on? Do we know anything really about this proposed development in the Big Land? The answer is no.
I have listened to Kathy Dunderdale speak on the Lower Churchill several times and she simply does not know enough on this potential to make decisions. Then we have to rely on the "experts" she relies on. What experts? The bureaucrats that would like to see hydro privatized? Nalcor executives who appear annoyed at having to answer questions? The companies that stand to gain short and long-term fortunes from the resource? One thing is for sure - Dunderdale is not listening to the people and she is ignoring many citizens of varying backgrounds who are warning - that this deal is bad - very bad.
Then there is Kathy's new appreciation, respect and adulation of Stephen Harper.
 | |||
| This picture says it all. |
Stephen Harper will only provide a loan guarantee to this province if it benefits other provinces. In fact the decimation of Newfoundland and Labrador resources to the benefit of other jurisdictions suits Harper just fine. This is how it has always been in Canada - and under Harper it will get worse.
Tonight as Dunderdale speaks to Harper - she may very well get the reversal on the closure of the marine rescue sub-centre - and this to keep the relationship intact long enough to rid Labrador of its industrial future.
The Emera deal is happening under very similar conditions to that of the Upper Churchill fiasco. A leader - Kathy Dunderdale - like Smallwood - who was satisfied to get compliments from those in the world of the corporate elite.
1. Joey sold the water rights in order to promote national unity and further secure Newfoundland's place in Canada. Kathy in essence is promoting the same ideas.
2. Joey quote:
“Our danger, so it seems to me, is that of nursing delusions of grandeur. We remember the stories of small states that valiantly preserved their national independence and developed their own proud culture, but we tend to overlook the fact that comparison of Newfoundland with them is ludicrous. We are not a nation. We are merely a medium size municipality, a mere miniature borough of a large city.”
Kathy has this mentality and believes we need others to develop and control our resources. This is the same thinking that went into the Upper Churchill.
* Just a quick note - Iceland - is doing just fine after the global economic meltdown and will probably fair better than fellow European nations.
3. Joey's continued assertion that the Upper Churchill deal was a good one, good for Canada, good for Newfoundland (Labrador), he'd say these are our resources, this is our falls, this is our water. Kathy is doing the same thing and once again we are heading for a catastrophic giveaway of our resources and worse dragging us into debt - which is not sustained by the market but rather by you and me on our power bills.
4. They both also harped on the tens of thousands of person-hours of work that will be created during construction. This was good for the companies that made a killing off the development and then walked away money in pocket - and shag Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Are we expecting businesses that stand to gain tens of millions - hundreds of millions are going to oppose the development? No they are going to cheer it on. They are not responsible for the future of our province. They are not responsible for the well being of our people and communities.
Naivety and personal satisfaction ruled the deal for Joey and it is ruling the deal for Kathy.
The media is not showing any real interest in the fact that we have no proof that this is a good deal - and that other options were considered. We remain absent of the proof that the Lower Churchill could not be developed for industrial development in Labrador. We have been told for years that industry demands subsidized power rates from such a development. Even if that is true - we are now going to subsidize power to Nova Scotia without one long-term industrial job created. If we are willing to subsidize lower power rates - are we not better off subsidizing it for long term jobs in Labrador?
There is no question that we are on the road to repeat one of the worst resource deals in history. If we allow Dunderdale to continue - we will repeat the Upper Churchill contract.
The only difference nowadays is that social media allows people to have their objections posted - recorded on line for the next generation to view. Sadly being able to say "I told you so" will provide little solace to our children.
What will you do to stop this disaster?
How many times must resources from this province benefit everybody but us?
How many times will the rest of Canada reap the lions share of benefits from our resources?
Do you believe any companies made fortunes from our fishery? What have we to show for it?
Do you believe any companies made fortunes from our minerals? What have we to show for it?
Do you believe any companies made fortunes from the Upper Churchill? What have we to show for it?
Do you believe any companies made fortunes from our Forests? What have we to show for that?
Despite our great wealth in natural resources - arguably more per capita than any other jurisdiction in North America; why has our population remained stagnant and aging? Why do our people have to leave to find gainful employment?
What happened to our shipyard? What's happening with Marystown? What happened to the federal ship-building contract? What happened to Bell Island? Where is our iron ore processed?
Please stop this carnage.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Option 3 - Our Government's Dirty Secret
In Newfoundland and Labrador the debate rages on among people as to whether we should export power through Quebec or through the Maritimes.
Please note that debate does not include our government, MHA's Cabinet and or Caucus or for that matter the Opposition parties. None of these entities wish to consult people - they after all know what's best for us. That should be obvious by the mess they have all made of it in the past.
Option 1 - exporting power through Quebec raises a whole host of problems not the least of which is the Upper Churchill hangover that no Screech in the land could possibly hope to cause. There is no question that access through provinces should be achievable and expected in Canada - however the work needed to be done appears outside the abilities of those currently sitting in the House of Assembly. The cost of this weakness is astronomical as we pay to avoid rather than deal with issue head-on and fight for what is most beneficial - economically to us.
Option 2 - exporting power through an "Atlantic/Maritime" route which in turn exponentially worsens our prospects from an economic basis and leaves us more vulnerable to Quebec than Option 1. The straight up logic that as a publicly traded company Emera can choose to sell a significant portion of their company or particular assets as they sit fit for the benefit of their shareholders (who generally speaking are not the people of Newfoundland and Labrador). It further increases cost which in turn makes you and I responsible for paying off unnecessary debt for years to come.
Option 3 - the dirty little secret and hidden option of simply not exporting the power and using it in Labrador. How can we as people move forward to reviewing export routes for our clean, renewable, green, reliable, and relatively cheap power - if we have not first determined if there is a market in Labrador for it. The fact that not one of our governments has successfully attracted such interests does not speak to the potential but rather the inept or disengaged politicians we have elected to represent us. In the case of some - the easier route has always been export as it does not require vision, dedicated effort, or thinking on a global level.
The media, Opposition, or Government has not provided one scrap of evidence that demonstrates we are unable to attract industry to Labrador using this superior power resource. They continue to say nobody has come knocking on our door. Why would they - when they know that eventually Newfoundland and Labrador will deliver the power to Nova Scotia, Ontario, or the New England States while paying for the enormous unnecessary cost of transmission. They know they can get the same deal in any of the jurisdictions we are going to export it to - because we dislike the Upper Churchill so much that we will pay through the nose ourselves just to bypass Quebec.
Labrador sits there without one aluminum smelter - let alone two or three - while competitive jurisdictions such as Quebec, Ontario, Russia, Iceland, Norway and even Greenland move ahead with industrial development using hydro-power.
You figure before Dunderdale or anybody else suggest we take on enormous debt and sell power cheaper than the cost to produce and transmit it - to another province or state - they would inundate us with paper showing us how and when they tried to attract industry to use it. But - not a peep.
You can follow the destruction in our fishery and come up with the same game plan that is being applied here. Let's not kid ourselves - we remain our own worst enemy and continue to attempt resource deals that are not only inferior but down and out reckless.
The Emera deal is a bad deal - and must be stopped. Our Premier - while entertained and complimented on her rise to the top - must not be permitted to make such a disastrous contract based on what appears to be her like of power and the attention she gets based on it.
By the way another day has passed without proper action on Old Harry, the Romaine River, and the Labrador Boundary - wonder if Ed Martin or any Nalcor officials are all over that - or if Dunderdale is drilling down yet again to achieve due diligence. When they are all finished maybe Kevin O'Brien can tell us in his own unique way - that "to be quite honest witchu" it's time to love Stephen Harper again.
With the passion Danny Williams claims to possess for Newfoundland and Labrador - he must be chawing at the bit - and looking for sleep relief. There are rumours he would like to be a comedic actor. I fear the comic relief of Critch and Williams will not raise a smile on our faces if we do not stop destroying the future for our children.
Please note that debate does not include our government, MHA's Cabinet and or Caucus or for that matter the Opposition parties. None of these entities wish to consult people - they after all know what's best for us. That should be obvious by the mess they have all made of it in the past.
Option 1 - exporting power through Quebec raises a whole host of problems not the least of which is the Upper Churchill hangover that no Screech in the land could possibly hope to cause. There is no question that access through provinces should be achievable and expected in Canada - however the work needed to be done appears outside the abilities of those currently sitting in the House of Assembly. The cost of this weakness is astronomical as we pay to avoid rather than deal with issue head-on and fight for what is most beneficial - economically to us.
Option 2 - exporting power through an "Atlantic/Maritime" route which in turn exponentially worsens our prospects from an economic basis and leaves us more vulnerable to Quebec than Option 1. The straight up logic that as a publicly traded company Emera can choose to sell a significant portion of their company or particular assets as they sit fit for the benefit of their shareholders (who generally speaking are not the people of Newfoundland and Labrador). It further increases cost which in turn makes you and I responsible for paying off unnecessary debt for years to come.
Option 3 - the dirty little secret and hidden option of simply not exporting the power and using it in Labrador. How can we as people move forward to reviewing export routes for our clean, renewable, green, reliable, and relatively cheap power - if we have not first determined if there is a market in Labrador for it. The fact that not one of our governments has successfully attracted such interests does not speak to the potential but rather the inept or disengaged politicians we have elected to represent us. In the case of some - the easier route has always been export as it does not require vision, dedicated effort, or thinking on a global level.
The media, Opposition, or Government has not provided one scrap of evidence that demonstrates we are unable to attract industry to Labrador using this superior power resource. They continue to say nobody has come knocking on our door. Why would they - when they know that eventually Newfoundland and Labrador will deliver the power to Nova Scotia, Ontario, or the New England States while paying for the enormous unnecessary cost of transmission. They know they can get the same deal in any of the jurisdictions we are going to export it to - because we dislike the Upper Churchill so much that we will pay through the nose ourselves just to bypass Quebec.
Labrador sits there without one aluminum smelter - let alone two or three - while competitive jurisdictions such as Quebec, Ontario, Russia, Iceland, Norway and even Greenland move ahead with industrial development using hydro-power.
You figure before Dunderdale or anybody else suggest we take on enormous debt and sell power cheaper than the cost to produce and transmit it - to another province or state - they would inundate us with paper showing us how and when they tried to attract industry to use it. But - not a peep.
You can follow the destruction in our fishery and come up with the same game plan that is being applied here. Let's not kid ourselves - we remain our own worst enemy and continue to attempt resource deals that are not only inferior but down and out reckless.
The Emera deal is a bad deal - and must be stopped. Our Premier - while entertained and complimented on her rise to the top - must not be permitted to make such a disastrous contract based on what appears to be her like of power and the attention she gets based on it.
By the way another day has passed without proper action on Old Harry, the Romaine River, and the Labrador Boundary - wonder if Ed Martin or any Nalcor officials are all over that - or if Dunderdale is drilling down yet again to achieve due diligence. When they are all finished maybe Kevin O'Brien can tell us in his own unique way - that "to be quite honest witchu" it's time to love Stephen Harper again.
With the passion Danny Williams claims to possess for Newfoundland and Labrador - he must be chawing at the bit - and looking for sleep relief. There are rumours he would like to be a comedic actor. I fear the comic relief of Critch and Williams will not raise a smile on our faces if we do not stop destroying the future for our children.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
The Lower Churchill/Emera Deal - Danny's Legacy - Our Nightmare
I had the "privilege" of attending the Joint Panel on the Lower Churchill development and listened to the NALCOR presentation.
Gilbert Bennett VP - Lower Churchill Nalcor delivered what can only be described as a propaganda manifesto for the Williams/Dunderdale government.
Further I am witnessing Kathy Dunderdale on her feet in the House of Assembly now repeating the propaganda and I am unsure if she actually believes or understands it.
This development is not for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - it will not be good for Newfoundland and Labrador - and it will disadvantage both residents and businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Let me start with Mr. Bennett - who sits in his position today because I and my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians stopped the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. He only joined Hydro in 2005 and guess what - he once worked for Cable Atlantic. The virtues and praises of the company he sings - is only possible because the people not government had a vision for our green energy.
After his prolonged and basic presentation - he took questions from the audience. Unlike the less than thorough report provided by the Telegram I and others in the audience gave him questions that he did not answer or did not answer satisfactorily.
Further - his behavior while I was asking questions was like watching a couple of school children attempting to intimidate a classmate as he and his cohort grinned and giggled and raised eyebrows as I spoke.
Mr. Bennett - number one you work for the people of this province - we are the shareholders of the company you are fortunate to have employment with. Second; for you to in any way try to make light of my questions and commentary is nothing more than a joke. We both know who did what to save the Crown Jewel - Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the jobs with it.
To my questions:
I asked Mr. Bennett if the deal with Emera was already done - as he was presenting as if it were including the awarding of contracts to Quebec companies like SNC Lavalin. After a bit of dancing he said no.
I asked Mr. Bennett if he could tell me the difference in the cost of power produced at the Lower Churchill if all the transmission lines to the Island and to Nova Scotia were not built. After screwing around with industry numbers - we got to it and he said it was about half price.
I asked if he was aware that Norway, Iceland, Quebec, Russia, and now Greenland have established aluminum smelters and he acknowledged that he did. I then followed with why Labrador could not establish same and if he was aware of what the power arrangements were in the aforementioned jurisdictions. Mr. Gilbert in a nut-shell said nothing has fallen into our laps and then went on with a convoluted attempt at trying to answer what the other jurisdictions were doing.
I asked him - outside of construction - how many jobs were going to be created in Newfoundland and Labrador on a long-term basis. He answered 35 and 50 respectively. I asked if he knew how many jobs could be produced long-term if an aluminum smelter set up in Labrador - he acknowledged it could be over a thousand.
The chair advised my time was up but I was permitted one more question - at which point Gilbert used the raising of the eyebrows and grinny look - I asked if he had a problem? He said no and added gruffly what is your question? I thanked the panel and sat down instead. I had seen enough of this sham of a consultation process and knew if I - who had such a long history with advocacy for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro could be treated with such disdain others would have no hope.
I listened to the presentation and I have to say there were more - 180 degree turns than I had witnessed in a while. When Nalcor and the government wanted to provide the Italian government and company with a "wind"fall by allowing privatization of wind energy - Hydro felt it was the best thing since sliced bread. Now that they "must" push this Emera deal through wind is intermittent and must be backed up - hydro is the best. You don't say Mr. Bennett - I remember the words coming out of my mouth while hydro execs were singing the wind energy tune to satisfy unknown shareholders.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador and here is why. The government cannot prove the numbers and projections it is using for power needs on the island. The projections on where energy costs may be in 2016 does not consider hydro's ability to lower costs as our current investments are paid off. The projections are the same incorrect projections used since the late 70's early 80's which would have seen our power supply exhaust in the early 1980's. This has not happened - primarily because of efficiencies, zero growth in population and the hemorrhaging of industry out of the island. I have copies of all of these projections and reports.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it once again does not use the power to attract industry to Labrador as the basis for development. The government has not provided the media or the public with evidence that they have tried but failed to attract industry. It further takes Islanders off thermal generation but does not take Labradorians off same.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it has us holding the debt to subsidize power to other provinces - thereby enabling our neighbours to attract industry using our power - while we are disadvantaged.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it forever puts at risk our control of exporting power by having one side controlled by Hydro-Quebec and the other by Emera (could be sold to Hydro-Quebec).
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it does not foresee or protect the takeover of Emera by Hydro-Quebec - even though this possibility is more real and fiction. That is if Danny Williams was telling you and I the truth when he said Hydro-Quebec would do anything to block us
The deal is bad and incomplete for Newfoundland and Labrador because Danny Williams and his government promised to find redress on the Upper Churchill before any deal on Lower Churchill and this has not been achieved.
This deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because the proper assessments of alternative use for the power have not been competed.
This deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because the permanent jobs associated with such a significant hydro development are well below acceptable standards for good social-economic policy.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because the net permanent job growth is zero. There are currently 85 people working at Holyrood - that goes to 35 loss of 50 - then 50 picked up in Labrador where there currently are zero. The only good thing here is that Labrador picks up jobs.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because we have an offshore company involved in the project on a virtually permanent basis when no such company should be needed. Particularly if we are seeking a loan guarantee.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because federal money/grants will end up going outside the province to support other jurisdictions to control power rates. This after the people fought so hard to stop privatization which would have driven our power rates through the roof the past 15 years. Now government suggests we almost double them?
Then there is this whole business of Harper and Ignatieff followed by a bunch of PC MHA's and Cabinet Ministers including the Premier and Liberals preaching to us that this project is good for Canada. We are going to contribute to the greening up of Canada. Excuse me - this must be lost on the federal leaders but it should be ingrained here. WE ARE ALREADY CONTRIBUTING 5000 MW'S OF POWER TO CANADA FROM THE UPPER CHURCHILL. Newfoundland and Labrador through this export of power represents the largest per-capita export of green energy to other provinces in the country.
The business community - the government boasts - is behind the development. When - has the business community not been behind extracting resources - regardless of whether or not it's the best deal? We have had many lopsided and bad deals on resources in this province before - each and every time business was behind it. That's because their role - particularly publicly traded companies - is not to achieve the best deal for the people - rather they are concerned about making money for their shareholders. Premier - it is your job and the job of your government to do the best deal for the people.
The Government, Premier, and Opposition leaders are responsible for doing the best deal for our province - not to make the best deal for other provinces. They have their own representatives.
The Liberal Opposition is absolutely falling hook line and sinker for the power price thing. This is put out there so that Kathy and the Willderdale government can come back with a subsidy of a few cents to complete their argument.
The truth is the whole works of them have done nothing to develop the "best deal" for the province and particularly Labrador. If they are unable to do better than this - they should let it flow until somebody has a real vision for the proper development of the tremendous resource.
Neither Gilbert Bennett, Ed Martin or the Premier are able to hold their own under scrutiny of this deal. Bennett and Martin are given direction and they follow it and the Premier or other Premier gives direction- which is incompetant at best and who knows at worst.
Ed martin was just on CBC with Debbie Cooper - now stating permanent jobs are 120? The information you are hearing is to promote this deal at all costs. Clearly it does not matter to those desperate to see it proceed - what has to be done and said to get the deal done.
Who wrote the questions for Debbie Cooper? What information and background did they have to prepare the questions? Would they agree that the questions are limited to the combined knowledge of those writing or asking the questions? Does that mean all questions are not being asked and that the interviewer may not have the knowledge to conduct a free-flow conversation. That being the case who will CBC interview on the other side of the argument? Who will represent all the interests and points of those opposed to the project? How will the viewer know that all sides have been heard?
I know the difference.
Next up the Boards of Directors associated with Nalcor. See you then.
On a side note - Kathy Dunderdale is the Premier of the province. Her job is to represent the province regardless of who may come calling. Showing up at a staged political event for the Conservative Party of Canada did nothing for Newfoundland and Labrador or her position. Her role should be to seek all she can from all major parties and their leaders. Her demonstration of odd partisanship with a party that differs significantly in ideology and with a leader that caused so much monetary damage to her own province and people is neither statesperson-like nor intelligent. This alone confims for me that she is unable to reliably or competantly complete a project the size of the Lower Churchill.
Ditto for Ms. Jones and Miss Michael.
Is there any way Russell Wangersky could take up the role of investigative journalist for this project?
Gilbert Bennett VP - Lower Churchill Nalcor delivered what can only be described as a propaganda manifesto for the Williams/Dunderdale government.
Further I am witnessing Kathy Dunderdale on her feet in the House of Assembly now repeating the propaganda and I am unsure if she actually believes or understands it.
This development is not for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - it will not be good for Newfoundland and Labrador - and it will disadvantage both residents and businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Let me start with Mr. Bennett - who sits in his position today because I and my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians stopped the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. He only joined Hydro in 2005 and guess what - he once worked for Cable Atlantic. The virtues and praises of the company he sings - is only possible because the people not government had a vision for our green energy.
After his prolonged and basic presentation - he took questions from the audience. Unlike the less than thorough report provided by the Telegram I and others in the audience gave him questions that he did not answer or did not answer satisfactorily.
Further - his behavior while I was asking questions was like watching a couple of school children attempting to intimidate a classmate as he and his cohort grinned and giggled and raised eyebrows as I spoke.
Mr. Bennett - number one you work for the people of this province - we are the shareholders of the company you are fortunate to have employment with. Second; for you to in any way try to make light of my questions and commentary is nothing more than a joke. We both know who did what to save the Crown Jewel - Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the jobs with it.
To my questions:
I asked Mr. Bennett if the deal with Emera was already done - as he was presenting as if it were including the awarding of contracts to Quebec companies like SNC Lavalin. After a bit of dancing he said no.
I asked Mr. Bennett if he could tell me the difference in the cost of power produced at the Lower Churchill if all the transmission lines to the Island and to Nova Scotia were not built. After screwing around with industry numbers - we got to it and he said it was about half price.
I asked if he was aware that Norway, Iceland, Quebec, Russia, and now Greenland have established aluminum smelters and he acknowledged that he did. I then followed with why Labrador could not establish same and if he was aware of what the power arrangements were in the aforementioned jurisdictions. Mr. Gilbert in a nut-shell said nothing has fallen into our laps and then went on with a convoluted attempt at trying to answer what the other jurisdictions were doing.
I asked him - outside of construction - how many jobs were going to be created in Newfoundland and Labrador on a long-term basis. He answered 35 and 50 respectively. I asked if he knew how many jobs could be produced long-term if an aluminum smelter set up in Labrador - he acknowledged it could be over a thousand.
The chair advised my time was up but I was permitted one more question - at which point Gilbert used the raising of the eyebrows and grinny look - I asked if he had a problem? He said no and added gruffly what is your question? I thanked the panel and sat down instead. I had seen enough of this sham of a consultation process and knew if I - who had such a long history with advocacy for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro could be treated with such disdain others would have no hope.
I listened to the presentation and I have to say there were more - 180 degree turns than I had witnessed in a while. When Nalcor and the government wanted to provide the Italian government and company with a "wind"fall by allowing privatization of wind energy - Hydro felt it was the best thing since sliced bread. Now that they "must" push this Emera deal through wind is intermittent and must be backed up - hydro is the best. You don't say Mr. Bennett - I remember the words coming out of my mouth while hydro execs were singing the wind energy tune to satisfy unknown shareholders.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador and here is why. The government cannot prove the numbers and projections it is using for power needs on the island. The projections on where energy costs may be in 2016 does not consider hydro's ability to lower costs as our current investments are paid off. The projections are the same incorrect projections used since the late 70's early 80's which would have seen our power supply exhaust in the early 1980's. This has not happened - primarily because of efficiencies, zero growth in population and the hemorrhaging of industry out of the island. I have copies of all of these projections and reports.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it once again does not use the power to attract industry to Labrador as the basis for development. The government has not provided the media or the public with evidence that they have tried but failed to attract industry. It further takes Islanders off thermal generation but does not take Labradorians off same.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it has us holding the debt to subsidize power to other provinces - thereby enabling our neighbours to attract industry using our power - while we are disadvantaged.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it forever puts at risk our control of exporting power by having one side controlled by Hydro-Quebec and the other by Emera (could be sold to Hydro-Quebec).
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because it does not foresee or protect the takeover of Emera by Hydro-Quebec - even though this possibility is more real and fiction. That is if Danny Williams was telling you and I the truth when he said Hydro-Quebec would do anything to block us
The deal is bad and incomplete for Newfoundland and Labrador because Danny Williams and his government promised to find redress on the Upper Churchill before any deal on Lower Churchill and this has not been achieved.
This deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because the proper assessments of alternative use for the power have not been competed.
This deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because the permanent jobs associated with such a significant hydro development are well below acceptable standards for good social-economic policy.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because the net permanent job growth is zero. There are currently 85 people working at Holyrood - that goes to 35 loss of 50 - then 50 picked up in Labrador where there currently are zero. The only good thing here is that Labrador picks up jobs.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because we have an offshore company involved in the project on a virtually permanent basis when no such company should be needed. Particularly if we are seeking a loan guarantee.
The deal is bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because federal money/grants will end up going outside the province to support other jurisdictions to control power rates. This after the people fought so hard to stop privatization which would have driven our power rates through the roof the past 15 years. Now government suggests we almost double them?
Then there is this whole business of Harper and Ignatieff followed by a bunch of PC MHA's and Cabinet Ministers including the Premier and Liberals preaching to us that this project is good for Canada. We are going to contribute to the greening up of Canada. Excuse me - this must be lost on the federal leaders but it should be ingrained here. WE ARE ALREADY CONTRIBUTING 5000 MW'S OF POWER TO CANADA FROM THE UPPER CHURCHILL. Newfoundland and Labrador through this export of power represents the largest per-capita export of green energy to other provinces in the country.
The business community - the government boasts - is behind the development. When - has the business community not been behind extracting resources - regardless of whether or not it's the best deal? We have had many lopsided and bad deals on resources in this province before - each and every time business was behind it. That's because their role - particularly publicly traded companies - is not to achieve the best deal for the people - rather they are concerned about making money for their shareholders. Premier - it is your job and the job of your government to do the best deal for the people.
The Government, Premier, and Opposition leaders are responsible for doing the best deal for our province - not to make the best deal for other provinces. They have their own representatives.
The Liberal Opposition is absolutely falling hook line and sinker for the power price thing. This is put out there so that Kathy and the Willderdale government can come back with a subsidy of a few cents to complete their argument.
The truth is the whole works of them have done nothing to develop the "best deal" for the province and particularly Labrador. If they are unable to do better than this - they should let it flow until somebody has a real vision for the proper development of the tremendous resource.
Neither Gilbert Bennett, Ed Martin or the Premier are able to hold their own under scrutiny of this deal. Bennett and Martin are given direction and they follow it and the Premier or other Premier gives direction- which is incompetant at best and who knows at worst.
Ed martin was just on CBC with Debbie Cooper - now stating permanent jobs are 120? The information you are hearing is to promote this deal at all costs. Clearly it does not matter to those desperate to see it proceed - what has to be done and said to get the deal done.
Who wrote the questions for Debbie Cooper? What information and background did they have to prepare the questions? Would they agree that the questions are limited to the combined knowledge of those writing or asking the questions? Does that mean all questions are not being asked and that the interviewer may not have the knowledge to conduct a free-flow conversation. That being the case who will CBC interview on the other side of the argument? Who will represent all the interests and points of those opposed to the project? How will the viewer know that all sides have been heard?
I know the difference.
Next up the Boards of Directors associated with Nalcor. See you then.
On a side note - Kathy Dunderdale is the Premier of the province. Her job is to represent the province regardless of who may come calling. Showing up at a staged political event for the Conservative Party of Canada did nothing for Newfoundland and Labrador or her position. Her role should be to seek all she can from all major parties and their leaders. Her demonstration of odd partisanship with a party that differs significantly in ideology and with a leader that caused so much monetary damage to her own province and people is neither statesperson-like nor intelligent. This alone confims for me that she is unable to reliably or competantly complete a project the size of the Lower Churchill.
Ditto for Ms. Jones and Miss Michael.
Is there any way Russell Wangersky could take up the role of investigative journalist for this project?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)