Search This Blog

Thursday 19 January 2012

The Muskrat Farce Continues...

Well things are finally heating up in the public arena about the Muskrat Falls project. It's about bloody time. Some folks, bloggers mostly, have been beating this drum for quite a while now with very few people actually paying attention, media included.

For example there was this video I posted in July of last year. You should find some of my commentary is very much inline with much of the current criticism of the project. It might be a little long but it certainly isn't burning up the YouTube charts! lol

Thank goodness there are more voices that are adding their weight to the argument in recent months. One such person is Dr. Wade Locke who gave a presentation hosted by MUN's Harris Centre that you can watch here. Locke had previously avoided commenting on Muskrat Falls because he said he had completed some initial work on the economic benefits from a workforce perspective. He seems to have changed his mind on speaking out, because the point of his presentation was to announce his support of the mega-project.

Of course Locke isn't the first MUN Economics Prof to get involved in the conversation. James Feehan also let his views be know via the C.D. Howe Institute in this paper. Feehan is much more skeptical about the rational for the project. In Lockes presentation he takes a couple of shots at Feehan and Feehan responds with a couple of pointed questions.

So where does it leave us if two economy "experts" seem to disagree on the basics of the $6.2 billion project. Well if you head over to the Telegram and read this little number from James McLeod you might start questioning exactly what the point of Locke's presentation actually was.

Taken from the article:
"Locke was comparing the Muskrat Falls project to an isolated island alternative, and he found Muskrat Falls is $2.2 billion cheaper than the second-best option.
But that cost difference doesn’t include the cost of transmitting power to the island.
When asked by The Telegram, “If that doesn’t include transmission, is that a fair comparison?”
Locke answered, “Probably not. You’d want to include transmission as well.”
The issue was raised during Tuesday night’s presentation by fellow economics professor James Feehan. "
So then what the hell was Locke doing comparing apples to oranges and not saying anything about it? Was he attempting to mislead people by not including all the pertinent information? One of my criticisms of the numbers provided by NALCOR has always been that we are expected to trust them blindly without ever seeing how they were calculated or where they came from. We're big boys and girls and some of us would very much like to see the evidence behind the show before we commit to a project that will saddle us with debt and double our electrical rates.

And as one final note remember that all of this is a result of your faithful Government who has made this decision on your behalf and without your input. The following video is concerning the current sate of Federal democracy but the sad part is that it's so much worse here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Keep asking questions, and may the farce be with you!

No comments:

Post a Comment