The Sir Robert Bond Papers

That’s the best he’s got #nlpoli

2012-02-03T14:00:00.000-03:30

As a rule when you start attacking the other guy’s character or attributing motives to him, you’ve admitted you don’t have much of an argument of your own

Natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy went back to the line on Wednesday that critics of the Muskrat Falls project are “politically motivated” and therefore can never be satisfied.

Uh huh.

Some of the leading public critics of the provincial Conservative government’s plan are – wait for it – provincial Conservatives.

Cabot Martin was a senior policy advisor for Brian Peckford in the 1980s and before that worked for Peckford when he was energy minister in Frank Moores’ Tory administration.

Ron Penney? Tory.

John Collins? Tory finance minister once upon a time.

What they share with others of other political backgrounds and some with no partisan affiliation of any kind ever, aside from a concern for the best interests of the province and its people, is an extraordinarily rich body of personal knowledge about Hydro and the Lower Churchill from the very first talk of it down to the current day.

The signatures at the bottom of a letter in the Thursday Telegram come from people of different political backgrounds. Their common interest, aside from what’s best for the province, is assuring that this project go through due process:

A refusal to give the Public Utilities Board the time it requires is unacceptable because the validity of a proceeding that does not follow due process of law will be unreliable.

As criticism of the project mounts, as the arguments in favour of the project crumble, Jerome Kennedy wants to try and impugn the integrity not of the arguments against his project but the people presenting them.

Argumentum ad hominem.

That’s the best Kennedy’s got.

Take that for the admission of failure it is.

- srbp -

Inadvertent humour, the MHI report edition #nlpoli

2012-02-03T11:00:00.000-03:30

The Telegram editorial on the Manitoba Hydro review of Muskrat Falls is a tidy bit of work with some sound advice:

The bottom line? Anyone who wants to say anything — either for or against — about this project should read the whole report carefully, and with an open mind.

Read the whole editorial, though. It also notes a key point missed by so many reporters in the past 48 hours. They are the ones who say that the report concluded Muskrat Falls is, indeed, the “least-cost” option to meet the power needs. Even accomplished writers buggered up the simple logic behind the grammar.

Least-cost suggests the Muskrat Falls bested more than one alternative. It hasn’t. it is the lower of the two choices, based, as the Telegram notes, on the parameters and assumptions MH got from Nalcor.

Then there was a “but”. It’s the stuff after the “but” you need to pay particular attention to.

What’s funny about that? Well, nothing, actually.

What’s funny are comments under the editorial in the online version. A few government agents using pen names or pseudonyms proclaim their support for the project. One even says he read it; after all the MHI report was short. Evidently he confused the e-mail from his boss with the talking points for the actual report.

If the report had condemned the project those fellows would not have read it or cared. They’d simply be cranking out the same drivel they are handed.

Another commenter, a critic of the project, goes on at length challenging the demand forecasts. That’s pretty much a mugs game. We will need power just as we need air. We need to replace Holyrood with something.

The question is what we do (how much generation and what mix of types) and when we do it.

The MHI report makes it plain that the current proposal – a big hydro plant built first coupled with more thermal generation than we currently have – ain’t really all it’s cracked up to be. it has plenty of big risks, some really faulty assumptions and way too many serious management shortcomings in the project thus far.

Of course, to even get that bit about what the project really entails (about more thermal than we currently have) you’d have to read the report, something that too many people evidently haven’t done.

- srbp -

Get politics out of fishery: report #nlpoli

2012-02-03T07:30:00.000-03:30

A strange as it may seem after years of evidence that political interference in fisheries management has caused nothing but grief, there are still people – all politicians – who think the answer is yet more political interference.

Expect all of them to be out in force responding to this fisheries report because it appears to criticise only federal politicians. The usual band will be pointing fingers and proclaiming ‘Aha!”. But make no mistake: they stand steadfastly for more political interference in the fishery.

You know who they are. you know because you have heard them on open line shows and the Fisheries broadcast.

The Royal Society of Canada report is on the mark. If Gus and Phil will take a chance to let this sink in, they’ll know why cod stocks remain in dismal shape:

“But the re-openings took place at the discretion of the minister. They were not based on science, they were not based on an overall recovery plan consistent with our national and international obligations,” Hutchings said.

And all those discretionary re-openings came from the plaintiff bleating of the voices in this province who insisted that the scientists knew nothing, fishermen knew better, there were a few fish in the bays and people should be left to get them while they could.

If Climb-down Cleary wanted to do something constructive about the fishery and the people who depend on it for a living, he’d ditch the sealskin bowtie, stop making a complete arse of himself and push for fisheries management based on scientific principles.

No one should hold their breath for that. Buffoonery from the backmost bench is still too fashionable.

- srbp -

So haunted by ghosts #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-02-02T14:00:00.000-03:30

Hear what comfortable words our Premier sayeth:

For generations gone by, the undeveloped hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill were, for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, like a treasure just out of reach, tantalizingly close but never close enough to enjoy. The gatekeepers of the natural transmission route through Quebec were denying us fair opportunity to get the power to market, and having been burnt once on the Upper Churchill, we were determined not to let that happen again.

Churchill Falls remains as powerful a totem for some politicians in this province as it ever was. The crowd currently running this place use it more frequently as their beloved Muskrat Falls project encounters more and more problems.

Their only problem is that they know only the illusion of the thing, not the reality.

Take that bit from Premier Kathy Dunderdale’s marathon oration a couple of days ago as a case in point.

At the time of the 1969 contract to sell power from Churchill Falls to Hydro-Quebec, the Lower Churchill was supposed to be a source of energy for the province itself. You can find the very idea in a piece from the People’s Paper from back in the day, as the hideous saying goes. Only later on did politicians think about trying to sell the bulk of the power outside and use any money from those sales to pay for a line to bring electricity onto the island, if need be.

The idea of Quebec as an obstacle is an old one, as well. The truth is that since the early 1990s they haven’t been a problem. No one developed the Lower Churchill because they could never make the economics of it work out. The fools never thought of making the people of the province foot the bill for the whole thing so they could ship the discount juice outside.

In any event, Kathy Dunderdale herself should know that Quebec isn’t an obstacle any more. In April 2009, her predecessor announced a deal to sell electricity from Churchill Falls to the United States through Quebec. Surely the Premier remembers these words attributed to her in the official news release three years ago:

“This is a significant development for us to share our excess green renewable energy with the rest of North America through our transmission access through Quebec and our subsequent arrangement directly with Emera Energy,” said the Honourable Kathy Dunderdale, Minister of Natural Resources. “These markets are seeking clean, reliable energy, which we have in abundance. The recall block availability and this arrangement allows us to build our reputation and experience as a reliable supplier of clean energy now and into the future.”

There it is in black and white: “through our transmission access through Quebec”.

Not around Quebec.

Not under Quebec.

Not over Quebec.

Through Quebec.

Through the "natural transmission route", in the words of the craftsman who put them in Kathy’s mouth.

Nalcor has been losing money on the deal, though. Electricity prices have dropped through a combination of lower demand in the United States and abundant cheap energy from natural gas. The reason Nalcor isn’t developing the Lower Churchill for export is that no one wants the power at the prices Nalcor would have to charge for it. As it is, Nalcor had to promise Nova Scotia a block of power for 35 years for free to get them on board the Muskrat Falls Express.

But through it all, dear friends, based on all that stuff which turns out wasn’t exactly fully, totally and completely in correlation with what we colloquially know as true, “we were determined not to let that happen again.”

And so determined was Kathy Dunderdale “not to let that happen again” that she and her boss tried for five years to lure Hydro-Quebec into taking an equity position – an ownership stake, if you will – on the prized Lower Churchill with the electricity going into Quebec and through Quebec.

We know this because Kathy herself told us all, even if no news media in the province have ever reported it lo these two and a half years later.

Hear what comfortable words Kathy sayeth back then:

Y’know, the Premier has gone to Quebec, and gone to Premier Charest, and, y’know, we’ve had NALCO(R) visit y’know Hydro-Quebec, I’ve been meeting with Ministers and so on. And we say to them, okay, y’know, we’ll set the Upper Churchill to one side, but, y’know, let’s sit down and have a talk about this Lower Churchill piece. Y’know, we know that we have to have a win-win situation here. Because we, as I’ve said earlier this week, we know that if you don’t have win-win you have win and poison pill. Because that’s what we’ve got with the Upper Churchill. So we can have a win-win situation. We know that if you come in here as an equity player that you have to have a good return on your investment. And we want you to have a good return on your investment. But it also has to be a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now we have been with that message back and forth [i.e. to Hydro-Quebec] for five years. No, sir. No, sir. There is no takeup on that proposal.

In fact, so determined was Kathy that she not let that 1969 contract happen again, so firm was she in her resolve on the matter that she and Danny Williams told the folks at Hydro-Quebec to forget all about it:

we’ll set the Upper Churchill to one side, but, y’know, let’s sit down and have a talk about this Lower Churchill piece

For good measure, Kathy wanted to make sure that Hydro-Quebec actually got a “good return” on their investment in the Lower Churchill. How good? Maybe as good as Nova Scotia will get – free power – but alas we will never know.

Hydro-Quebec, as it turned out, just wasn’t interested.

There are some people, as it seems, who are haunted by the infamous Upper Churchill contract. They see its ghost at every turn, beckoning them onward.

And so they follow, mesmerised by the rushing of water and the humming of generators, deeper and ever deeper into its lair until they can no longer tell what is real and what is illusion. They talk as though one was the other and that both were the same.

It is then - and only then – that you know the Ghost in the Turbines has claimed another victim.

- srbp -

Rumpole and the Better Half #nlpoli

2012-02-02T11:00:00.000-03:30

You likely won’t hear much mention of this provincial first but in the midst of the hoopla over Muskrat Falls on Wednesday, the justice minister announced a first for Provincial Court: a husband and wife will sit as judges at the same time.

Former director of public prosecutions Pamela Goulding, Q.C. will sit in St. John’s.

Her husband is Chief Judge Mark Pike.

The scuttlebutt in the clerk’s room at Number 3 Iniquity Court has it that Pike and Goulding also have the distinction of being the first married lawyers to take silk at the same time.

Well, sort of.

In 2008, the list of new Queen’s Counsel appointments included Pike and Goulding. A few days later came the announcement of Pike’s appointment to the bench. As it turned out, Pike got to the bench before the ceremony to hand out the silk robes. As a result, he never really got the chance to wear them.

Sometimes judges have to do a spell in the hinterland before getting the plum spots in Sin Jawns. One of Goulding’s predecessors sat in Harbour Grace for the longest while waiting patiently until a spot opened up in town.

Included the announcement with Goulding was Laura Mennie, Q.C. who will sit in Stephenville. Mennie took silk in June 2011. At the time of her Q.C. appointment, Mennie was working for the child, youth and family services department in western Newfoundland and also completing the requirements for a master’s degree in family law at Osgoode Hall Law School.

- srbp -

The trap of fossil fuels #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-02-02T07:30:00.000-03:30

Muskrat Falls green.

Right?

Get rid of Holyrood.

Holyrood bad.

No more oil burning.

Must be true.

After all, natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy tweeted a couple of weeks ago that:

The cost of oil makes Holyrood so expensive. At peak it burns 18,000 barrels of oil per day. Experts tell us that oil will continue to rise.

…

MF cont'd. Cost of fixing up Holyrood is $600M. Forecasted cost of oil between 2017-36 is more that $7B.Hydro avoids the volatility of oil.

And Premier Kathy Dunderdale told the St. John’s Board of Trade not even 48 hours ago of the glorious future when there are no more fossil fuel plants in Newfoundland, thanks to the wonders of her Muskrat Falls project:

What is the best thing we can do for our children 30, 40 and 50 years from now? It is to escape from a thermal future, taking our economy off the trap of fossil fuels, where we are hostage to rising oil prices. We will deliver a secure, sustainable economy to our children, and that is a legacy we can all be proud of.

Yeah well, hang on to your long johns, there, kiddies.

According to Manitoba Hydro International, the Muskrat Falls plan includes the construction of seven new oil-fired - i.e. thermal – generating plants between 2036 and 2037.

The total cost for these additional facilities is estimated to cost a total of $1.4 billion in the MHI documents on thermal generation. Is that included in the $5.0 billion cost estimate for this project, less the connection to Nova Scotia?

Sharp eyes will notice that Holyrood doesn’t shut down in this plan until 2030. That’s with Muskrat Falls. it will run as a line condenser to help with the transmission and, if you follow the discussion, as a small back-up generator for a short period.

Don’t think too hard about those dates, though. The entire Muskrat plan anticipates that construction has already started. They begin counting time in 2010 and have initial power flowing by 2017. You can already slide that back by at least 12 months and possible 18 months or more.

And don’t you recall reading somewhere official that with “Muskrat Falls, the Newfoundland and Labrador electricity system will be run on 98 per cent renewable, emission-free energy?”

You can take that to the bank.

That is copper-fastened.

Well, maybe more like brass, with a bit of tarnish on it. According to Manitoba Hydro International’s financial assessment:

By 2067, the generation capacity mix for the Infeed Option will be based on 65% hydroelectric and 35% thermal.

Good thing we will escape the trap of fossil fuels.

- srbp -

Dunderfalls #nlpoli

2012-02-01T16:00:00.000-03:30

This is a screen cap of the picture VOCM is using on their front page to illustrate a story on Muskrat Falls.

C’mon guys. This isn’t artsy. This isn’t creative.

This is just unflattering to the Premier and therefore inappropriate.

Next thing you know she’ll be slicing into the evil people at VOCM who always treat her like shit after she criticises them.

What’s more creepy though is that there is a right hand holding a recorder and another – maybe left - hand holding the VO mike and the camera appears to be in between.

Helmet cam?

Seriously.

This is just weird.

It’s starting to look like NTV circa 1974 or something.

Seagulls flying around.

Captain Kangalini or whatever his name was.

Next thing over in The Valley, they’ll be bringing back the VOCM logo girl.

If they do, run for the hills.

- srbp -

It’s a nice project, but… #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-02-01T14:45:00.000-03:30

Manitoba Hydro’s limited review of Muskrat Falls is now available publicly.

Manitoba Hydro concluded that the project is indeed the lower cost option of the two they were limited to studying and using all the assumptions they had to use under the question set for them by the people behind the project.

But…

Let’s take a look at a couple of areas of the report. There’ll be more to follow.

The opposite of good practices

Nalcor should have completed an alternating current integration study before clearing Decision Gate 2 but didn’t. (Executive Summary, p. 10 and Vol. 2, Ch.4 )

That study would look at how all the bits of the generating and transmission system would play together given the physical characteristics of different parts of the system. The study would look at things like back up systems, load balancing and similar operating requirements needed to maintain power across a range of possible events (e.g. equipment failures, weather problems etc)

As Manitoba Hydro put it:

Good utility practice requires that these integration studies be completed as part of the project screening process (DG2). MHI considers this a major gap in Nalcor’s work to date. These integrations studies must be completed prior to project sanction (DG3).

This stands out for two reasons. First, it’s the type of study Tom Adams pointed to in his second post on Muskrat Falls. Ed Martin will have a much harder time now dismissing Adams’ critique.

Second, Nalcor was very proud of the review of clearing Decision Gate 2 done by Navigant. How did they miss this? Are there other equally serious problems with Navigant’s other reviews and endorsements of this project?

Manitoba Hydro didn’t look at the Nova Scotia link. It wasn’t part of their terms of reference. They did note however, that Nalcor also doesn’t comply with current North American Electric reliability Corporation standards. Those are the ones that allow the North American network to fit together.

Those are two big reviews that need to be done. Nalcor says the system review will be done by March 2012.

Lower cost?

One of the most obvious criticisms of the Muskrat Falls project is that Nalcor simply didn’t look at all the reasonable alternatives.

The second one has been the basis for the cost estimates for the two options that Nalcor did assess. According to its proponents, Muskrat Falls is the right option because:

It costs about $2.2 billion less than the alternative, and,
That cost differential is all about fuel prices.

You can find that sort of analysis in Wade Locke’s recent presentation in which he endorsed Muskrat Falls. Not surprisingly, the current administration loves Wade Locke because he agrees with them so often.

Manitoba Hydro’s Cumulative Present Worth Analysis (Summary and Vol 2, Ch. 12) show just how vulnerable those claims are to shifts in their underlying assumptions.

MH asked Nalcor to review their assessment in light of a theoretical closure of the Corner Brook paper mill and the consequent availability of its generating capacity for use by the island system. The Infeed advantage dropped from $2.2 billion to about $400 million.

Similarly, a change in world oil prices dramatically changed the cost differential. Nalcor uses forecasts prepared by the internally respected analysts at PIRA Group. Using PIRA’s March 2010 forecasts, the Muskrat falls advantage drops from $2.2 billion to $120 million.

A change in capital costs – up to a 50% cost over-run on the project – would leave Muskrat Falls a mere $194 million cheaper than the isolated island option.

MH also performed assessment’s in which they varied several factors using reasonable assumed changes. They reduced the Muskrat advantage in the reported scenarios to less than $200 million and in one instance had them equal.

Bear in mind that this does not compare Muskrat Falls to other options such as natural gas generation using local supplies. The preliminary reviews are promising, but neither Nalcor nor its supporters have bothered to do the work.

Also, MH did not run an analysis using a marginally lower fuel price assumption than the one Nalcor used but with a 50% cost over-run on the project. That’s actually a likely scenario given recent capital cost experience in places like Manitoba.

- srbp -

Terawatts for Terra Nova and other fun #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-02-01T11:00:00.000-03:30

Energy analyst Tom Adams points to some problems with the Muskrat Falls project and, in the process, turns out one of the biggest bits of critical commentary on Muskrat Falls in a while.

You know because the good folks at Nalcor took the time to write a post for their corporate blog that responded to the Adams piece. Nalcor CEO Ed Martin wrote at the beginning:

I'm compelled to correct the statements made by you, and request the prompt apology you said you would make if your arguments were wrong.

“Correct the statements.”

Remember that phrase.

Ed Martin made the rounds of the local call-in shows, especially the unquestioningly government-friendly afternoon one. No accident that. The Telly ran a story on Tuesday. NTV ran it on Monday night as a blog fight.

The funny thing is that Ed Martin didn’t actually correct anything. Sure he claimed that Tom Adams didn’t get his facts straight. Sure Martin claimed Adams didn’t cover all the information. After all, there are hundreds of thousands of pages.

Persuasion by the ton

You can tell this point, the amount of information Nalcor has pumped is so important – and convincing – because Martin and natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy and just about anyone else backing the project will point you to the boxes of documents like they are auditioning for a shot to replace Vanna on Wheel.

There is all this information, they will say.

Surely we must be absolutely correct in all our claims because there is this pile of paper.

Try and lift it.

We dare you.

Can’t?

Then we must be right.

How much weight is it?

A shitload, for sure. Some people don’t recognise that one shitload is the average monthly output of “Minister paves road in district” or ”Premier hands out keys to new fire truck” new releases from a typical provincial government department.

One shitload.

It’s the internal performance measurement for promotions and bonuses in the public service: “Nelson produced 13 shitloads of happy-crappy releases this year instead of the quota of 12 usually produced by departments of this size.”

It could all be meaningless garbage that no one understands, but that isn’t important in government circles.

Government types measure persuasion, like work: by weight.

But all that is digression…

Your humble e-scribbler has already demolished Ed Martin’s suggestion that the Smallwood reservoir is really there to feed Muskrat Falls. The actual words on the water management agreement as well as 2007 amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act make that pretty clear.

So what about the other big issue, the question of energy from Muskrat Falls?

How much will there be?

Terawatts for Terra Nova

According to Ed Martin:

Muskrat Falls will generate 4.9 terawatt hours of energy per year.

Adams comes at it another way in his first post. He looks at a graph of water flows in Nalcor’s own environmental impact study and draws his conclusion:

My area under the curve estimate of the average production rate over the year is 577 MW (taking into account the nameplate capacity). Assuming a theoretically perfect 100% load factor, this corresponds to 5.05 TWh of production — i.e. pretty close to the project estimate of 4.9 TWh of production.

Adams actually gives Muskrat Falls with credit for slightly more energy (5.05 TWh) than Ed Martin does (4.9 TWh) if the water flows are right. No conflict or contradiction there. So let’s take that and work with it.

Terawatts and megawatts and martins: oh my!

Some of you have no doubt noticed Tom Adams used a figure of 577 MW while the official rating for Muskrat Falls is 824 MW of installed generating capacity. That comes from installing four generators each with a rated capacity of 206 MW.

Four times 206 is 824.

Simple math.

To figure out the terawatt hours per year involved, you need to multiply that 824 by the number of hours in a year (8760). So theoretically, if you ran Muskrat Falls flat out all year, the plant should crank out 7.0 TWh. That’s what you get when you multiple 8760 by 824.

But Muskrat Falls will produce 4.9 TWh according to Ed Martin. We can also use another Nalcor figure of 4.5 TWh. Divide that by 8760 and you get rough numbers to compare megawatts, in this case 570 or thereabouts

How does that compare to Holyrood?

According to Nalcor, Holyrood has generators that cumulatively produce 490 MW. That gives us a theoretical maximum energy output of 4.3 TWh. Nalcor’s numbers for Muskrat Falls - 4.5 and 4.9 TWh – are only marginally above what Holyrood does. To a layman, like your humble e-scribbler, that looks like Muskrat Falls doesn't push out much more than Holyrood, despite the difference in installed capacity.

Now check out the Nalcor’s own water flow chart. It is based on average monthly flows.

The period when Nalcor will need water the most to feed domestic demand and at the same time feed Nova Scotia just happens to be the same time when average monthly water flows on the river are lowest.

Now this is not a question of whether they need new water studies or not. This is also not about the water management agreement. It’s about when the most water is available to make electricity compared to when Nalcor will need to make electricity the most. They don’t match.

Could it be possible that Nalcor missed something that important?

- srbp -

Adams and Nalcor: Second Round #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-02-01T07:30:00.000-03:30

Energy analyst Tom Adams’ latest blog post on the Muskrat Falls project takes direct aim at the water studies used by Nalcor to support its claim that the plant will produce 4.9 terawatts of electricity each year.

Adams writes:

it appears that Nalcor took a study that estimated the energy production available from Muskrat Falls as delivered to an unconstrained interface at the Quebec/Labrador border and applied those study results to the Integrated Island/Nova Scotia system instead. Since the constraints of the Integrated Island/Nova Scotia system bear heavily on the potential output of Muskrat Falls, I believe that there is no basis for you to assert that Muskrat Falls will ever generate close to 4.9 TWh given the system you are now seeking approval for.

Adams appeared on VOCM Nightline and explained his concerns. Your humble e-scribbler talked to Adams afterward and got more details.

His comments are based on information Nalcor provided to the public utilities board. They are a 1999 study by SNC and an Acres power study done in 1998 and apparently re-affirmed by more recent work described in a four page summary that omits any details.

Adams notes that the water flow studies were based on particular configurations, including building Muskrat Falls as part of a complex including Gull Island. No one has looked at a river system consisting of only Muskrat Falls below the Churchill Falls complex.

Take a look at the table from the Acres study filed with the PUB. You can see someone’s simple calculation for Muskrat falls. He or she just looked for the difference between Churchill Falls and Gull and another scenario with Churchill Falls, Gull and Muskrat.

Does that make a difference? Adams thinks so.

Your humble e-scribbler might go a bit beyond that. The higher energy numbers for Muskrat Falls in this table – the ones closest to current estimates – come from a scenario that includes water from two river diversions planned for 1998 but subsequently abandoned. That’s more curious than anything at this point but it suggests Adams may be onto something.

When it comes to delivering electricity to Nova Scotia, Adams has a new point. He notes that the Nalcor claims about Muskrat’s output come from a different transmission scenario: one way into Quebec or into Quebec and onto the island.

Adams suggests that congestion on the island lines, especially routing through the hydro lines through the central part of the island, may produce significant congestion. That congestion could adversely affect how much electricity flows to Nova Scotia.

Is Adams right?

Let’s see if Nalcor answers him this time with something more enlightening than simply claiming that he’s wrong.

- srbp -

Born Again Fiscal Virgins #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-31T18:00:00.000-03:30

Premier Kathy Dunderdale is singing the usual Tory song before contract negotiations and a provincial budget.

Yes, folks, in a speech to the St. John’s Board of Trade the Premier was talking about the need to control spending.

We’ve all been down this road before. Of course, the same people who talk the talk don’t walk the walk. They’ve been the ones who caused the current fiscal problems the Premier was talking about.

In this corner, your humble e-scribbler has been warning about the Tory fiscal imprudence since 2006. It’s one they’ve acknowledged being vaguely aware of since about 2008, at least. That’s when the Auditor General of the day warned about it. In 2009, the finance minister and the Premier of the day admitted their spending was unsustainable.

And yet they continued to crank up spending to record levels.

So basically there is nothing in Kathy Dunderdale’s speech on Tuesday that the Tories haven’t said before. Kathy Dunderdale’s strategy to deal with the problems she and her colleagues created is the same one the Tories have talked about since 2003. And that’s the one that created the problem she claims she wants to fix.

Think of it like make-work for politicians. First, you create a problem. Second, announce that you plan to tackle the problem. Third, tell everyone the strategy you will use is to follow all the policies that caused the problem in the first place. Repeat annually as needed.

Anyway, just look at one part of the speech if you want to know how seriously out of touch with reality a politician can be:

What is the best fiscal policy response in the face of this reality? Some may suggest that a balanced budget is the best goal in order to avoid taking on debt. However, this would require a dramatic reduction of spending.

If they can’t balance the budget without a dramatic reduction in spending then they are already spending way more than they are bringing in.

D’uh!

So if you are spending beyond your means – and don’t stop - you cannot really get spending under control, reduce public debt and all the others things that genuinely responsible governments do.

And if you reject balanced budgets because it would mean spending cuts, then obviously you just aren’t serious about all that talk of spending cuts, controls or that thing called fiscal prudence.

After eight years, the unions know all about the born again fiscal virgins. They aren’t fooling anyone.

- srbp -

Hebron, the Lower Churchill and Local Benefits #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-31T07:30:00.000-03:30

Apparently, this whole Hebron work thing is much ado about nothing.

Premier Kathy Dunderdale spent some time Monday afternoon chatting with On the Go’s Ted Blades about a recent decision by Kiewit to take a pass bidding on a second topsides module for the Hebron project.

Labour was tight. The company was having trouble delivering on time and on budget.

At one point, the Premier said there would be more work. The size of the topsides has apparently gone from the original estimate of 11,000 tons to 18,000 tons.

So, sez the Premier, there’ll be 18,000 tons of work.

You know, that’s some that always puzzled humble e-scribblers. When people say there’s tons of work, now you know what they mean. Don’t look for the number of people on the job. Forget the number of hours of labour.

Work now is measured in tons.

You cannot make this stuff up.

You wouldn’t.

You’d be afraid to make something like that up because people would never believe that the Premier of the province could say such a thing.

But she did.

Dunderdale also tried to claim that the crowd what has been running the place since 2003 were the first ones to copper-fasten the amount of work to be done locally on an offshore project. Others, she said, had settled for “best efforts.”

Kathy didn’t say copper-fasten but that’s one of her favourite little bits of meaningless jargon. Like referring to something as a piece. Like the Hebron piece. Or the Kiewit piece.

But anyway, first time for nailing stuff down right to the gram or work that had to be done in the province.

All that would be wonderful, of course.

Splendiferous even, except that it isn’t true.

Construction of the gravity base for the project was always going to be done in Newfoundland. That’s the cheapest way to do things. The provincial government didn’t get anything there they didn’t already have going into the meeting.

And then there is a bunch of small time stuff like a tube called the flare boom. Low tech metal bashing, for sure, and again, nothing of any difficulty to get done in someone’s back yard welding shop.

But the topsides modules, utilities and process module and other big stuff covered in Sections 5.5 B, C,and D of the benefits agreement, well those are all subject to conditions. The conditions are secret. They are considered to be commercially sensitive.

They are not copper-fastened at all.

As for the rest of the project, the Hebron final agreement has more than a few give-aways in it.

The companies got a huge break on financing research and development. Kathy and her former boss let the companies skate with a pittance of a cash commitment compared to what the offshore regulatory board rules required.

On royalties, Kathy and her old boss gave the companies a break up front as well. Instead of an escalating percentage of revenue, Kathy and Danny gifted the companies with a flat one percent for as long as it takes to pay off the project development costs.

When Roger Grimes talked about such an idea, back when oil prices were forecast to stay low forever, Danny tore great strips off Grimes’ hide. As it turned out Danny gave the oil companies a gigantic break when prices were high. And Kathy Dunderdale totted out in front of the cameras to tell news media it was a way of giving the oil companies some protection against changes in oil prices.

Just think about that, in hindsight. Back then - in 2008 - Kathy was running to protect oil companies against the chance oil prices might drop.

The poor old multinational multi-trillionaire oil companies.

Too fragile to take the risk.

A couple of years later – in 2010 – oil prices were going to be high forever. That is the justification for Muskrat Falls. And what about protecting taxpayers from the possibility oil prices might fall? Out trots Kathy and then Shawn and now Jerome to say there’s no chance of that happening.

And so the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people who own the oil and gas and the water, having given the oil companies a break must now dig ever deeper into their own pockets to ensure their electricity prices are high. Nova Scotians, meanwhile, will get their power for free, except for three months of the year when Muskrat apparently can’t deliver the juice.

Not much of a local benefit in that. Sure, Tory supporters will tell you all about what Danny got in exchange. Like equity stakes.

Hang on a second.

Equity.

No small irony that the two big issues in the province are the Lower Churchill on the one hand and Hebron on the other. Those equity stakes, including the one in Hebron, were always about one thing: financing the Lower Churchill. Local benefits were entirely secondary.

Don’t believe it?

Williams broke off Hebron talks in 2006 because he couldn’t get an equity stake. Nothing else. After 18 months of public pissing matches and private suck jobs, Williams got a deal on Hebron.

But he didn’t pick up any local benefits that weren’t already on the table in 2006. The so-called super-royalty won’t add much beyond what the province would have received under the same royalty regime that is delivering in spades on projects like Hibernia and Terra Nova and White Rose.

Equity was the thing.

The first thing.

The most important thing.

So important that Danny even told Arnold about it:

The Premier also discussed the province's Energy Plan objective of using non-renewable resource revenues to fuel a future based on renewable sources of energy.

At times like this, it is always interesting to go back and see what was running around at the time. This time look at August 2007 and the rather convenient election announcement of a Hebron deal:

6. Shortage of workers means shortage of work.

In the last round of negotiations, the provincial government insisted that any work that could be done in Newfoundland and Labrador had to be done there or the companies would pay a penalty. Reportedly, the companies noted that Long Harbour plus the Lower Churchill would outstrip the local labour and engineering pool making it almost impossible to complete Hebron using only local resources.

Cancellation of Hebron last year meant that workers who would have started work on Hebron have already headed west to the higher wages of Alberta. That made the predicted situation worse, not better and therefore will make it harder for the province to stick with that bargaining point.

Expect that provincial demand to drop off the table or for Hebron to get preference over the Lower Churchill. Otherwise, the cost of the project will be forced up.

Your humble e-scribbler had plenty of people from the local oil and gas community point that out. The companies talked about labour force shortages and costs, they said. The final Hebron agreement reflected the limited capacity in the local market to do some of the bigger components for Hebron. The only things the companies had to do here was what they absolutely had no choice but do here.

Not surprisingly, that old demand for guaranteed local benefits or suffer a penalty disappeared.

And equally unsurprisingly, the provincial government’s news release talked up the GBS and the small stuff – “outstanding local benefits” – but only after they played up the equity.

Makes you wonder why Kathy Dunderdale is talking about Kiewit and Marystown like it was some kind of surprise to her. She’s known about the whole thing from the beginning: Hebron, the Lower Churchill, jobs, local benefits and the equity.

The equity.

It’s always been about the equity. That’s what ties it all together.

- srbp -

Cleary on the Move #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-30T18:00:00.000-03:30

Noob Bloc-NDP member of parliament Ryan Cleary is on the move.

Backwards.

In the most recent seating plan for the House of Commons, Cleary’s seat goes all the way down the opposition side of the House down to the seats right next to the Tories, up in the back row.

The orange arrow shows how far he’s been shuffled.

There are a handful of Conservatives on the opposition side because there aren’t enough seats for all the Tories over on the side normally reserved for government members.

Ryan’s new digs are in the same desk pairing as an independent member of the House.

If you want to get a sense of direction, the Speaker would be towards the bottom of this seating plan. The government benches are to the right. The only thing between Ryan’s new seat and the hall outside the House is not much more than a curtain.

- srbp -

Muskrat Falls: more pesky details #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-30T14:20:00.000-03:30

Tom Adams’ blog post is attracting much attention in Newfoundland and Labrador on Monday.

No surprise in that, given that Adams’ did some calculations of water flows and came to the conclusion that for at least part of the year, Muskrat Falls wouldn’t be able to meet its commitments to ship electricity to Nova Scotia.

But Adams hit such a nerve that Nalcor boss Ed Martin posted a comment on his own corporate blog that purports to correct Adams’ inaccurate comments.

Martin doesn’t really provide anything concrete. He just points to the mass of stuff filed with the public utilities board. Some of it comes from the best minds available, donchyaknow. Lots of well worn lines but nothing that specifically refutes anything Adams said.

And then Martin points to the water management agreement imposed by the public utilities board on Nalcor and Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation in 2009:

I’m not sure if you are aware of legislation in our province that requires a water management agreement to be in place between Nalcor and Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation (Churchill Falls). The legislation requires the two power producers to use available storage, primarily in the Churchill Falls reservoir, and their respective generating facilities to optimize the production of power while maintaining the contractual obligations of Churchill Falls to its customers.

The first sentence is a bit condescending but look at the last bit: “optimize the production” while maintaining the contractual obligations of Churchill Falls to its customers.”

Priority for Churchill Falls

Not exactly.

Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of the water management agreement give Churchill Falls customers more than an equal status with Muskrat Falls.

While we can’t be sure Martin is aware of the actual words in the water management agreement and their implications, here they are for greater certainty:

3.1 No Adverse Effect

The parties acknowledge that pursuant to Section 5.7 of the Act, nothing in this Agreement shall adversely affect a provision of a contract for the supply of Power and Energy entered into by a Supplier and a third party prior to this Agreement, or a renewal of that contract (collectively "Prior Power Contracts"), and that all provisions of this Agreement and ancillary documents and agreements shall be interpreted accordingly.

3.2 Acknowledgement of Prior Power Contracts

The Suppliers acknowledge that the following are the sole contracts for the supply of Power and Energy entered into by a Supplier and a third party prior to this Agreement:

(a) the power contract entered into between Hydro-Quebec and CF(L)Co dated May 12, 1969 as well as Schedule III of such power contract which relates to its
renewal (the "HQ Power Contract" );

(b) the Churchill Falls Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract between Hydro-Quebec and CF(L)Co dated November 1, 1998, as amended on March 29, 2000;

(c) the sublease entered into between Twin Falls Power Corporation Limited and CF(L)Co dated November 15, 1961, as amended on April 15, 1963, November 30,
1967 and July 1, 1974 and renewed pursuant to an agreement dated June 9, 1989,and the operating lease between the same parties dated November 30, 1967, as
amended on July 1, 1974 and November 10, 1981; and,

(d) the power contract entered into between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation and CF(L)Co dated March 9, 1998, as amended on April 1, 2009.

Note the reference to section 5.7 of the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. That was part of a package of amendments to the EPCA then-natural resources minister Kathy Dunderdale rammed through the House of Assembly on the second last and last day of the spring 2007 session.

Provision of an agreement void

5.7 A provision of an agreement referred to in section 5.4 or 5.5 shall not adversely affect a provision of a contract for the supply of power entered into by a person bound by the agreement and a third party that was entered into before the agreement under section 5.4 or 5.5 was entered into or established, or a renewal of that contract.

During the very brief discussion in the House – it wasn’t a debate by any means - Dunderdale mentioned this clause specifically:

The amendment will ensure the delivery commitments under existing contracts are honoured, including the 1969 power contract for the Upper Churchill. This protection is explicitly written into the amendment.

When you look at the details, it’s pretty clear that the water management agreement gives priority to any demands related to Churchill Falls. As long as there’s enough water and there is no conflict, everything on the river will be fine.

But what happens when the water flows needed at Muskrat Falls don’t match with the needs of Churchill Falls? Well, Muskrat loses every time.

This is something that the current administration voted for in 2007. It’s included in the 2009 water management agreement.

No dispute on Nova Scotia?

With that firmly in your brain, go back and read Ed Martin’s blog post again.

Notice what’s missing.

At no point does Martin mention the problem of delivering electricity to Nova Scotia in the peak winter demand months of January to March. Churchill Falls will be cranking water down stream to run Muskrat Falls so water management is not an issue.

The problem Tom Adams identified is that Muskrat Falls likely won’t crank out enough electricity to feed the entire island in place of Holyrood and ship electricity to Nova Scotia at the same time.

Surely if Nalcor wanted to specifically refute Adams, they’d have mentioned that big issue specifically.

- srbp -

I am my own grandpa, legal version #nlpoli

2012-01-30T14:00:00.000-03:30

This one seems tailor-made for the legal geniuses who came up with the ;aw in this province that allows you to vote in an election that doesn’t exist to fill a vacancy the legislature that doesn’t exist either at the time you vote.

An inmate in a state prison in the United States sued himself for violating his own civil rights.

You have to read the story to discover that the real point of the suit was to try and get cash from the state. The inmate contended the state would have to pay for the violation since the inmate - being an inmate - was a ward of the state.

The judge tossed the case because it was “ludicrous”.

- srbp -

Nalcor will have problems supplying MF power to Nova Scotia? #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-30T11:00:00.000-03:30

Energy analyst Tom Adams has an interesting observation on why Nalcor and Emera are having a hard time finishing their agreement.

Adams believes that a detailed analysis of Muskrat Falls generating capacity and electricity demand will create a situation where “Nova Scotia gets nothing or close to nothing when customers there need it most.” [Emphasis in original]

As Adams lays it out:

During the times of the year when Holyrood would have been running near capacity, all on-island generation [in Newfoundland] will be running flat-out (as it does today) and Muskrat Falls will not be able to supply enough power to move any significant amount of power to Nova Scotia. This is because in Jan./Feb./Mar. the maximum output of Muskrat Falls will be about 500 MW due to the seasonality of water flow. This maximum output is after taking into account the operation of the Upper Churchill facility upstream which is contractually bound to maximize winter production for sales to Quebec.

Hang on, some of you will be saying. Adams has left out 324 megawatts. He mentions 500 MW but the Muskrat Falls dam is supposed to produce 824 MW.

Yeah, well, not really according to Adams.

Adams took a closer look at information Nalcor supplied to the public utilities board. Adams believes that the Nalcor information presents an ideal scenario. In actual operation, Adams believes the plant will crank out 577 MW. According to Adams, “this corresponds to 5.05 TWh of production — i.e. pretty close to the [official] project estimate of 4.9 TWh of production.”

In the summer months, Nalcor won’t have any trouble meeting its commitments to ship free electricity to Nova Scotia. There’s plenty readily available on the island from the surplus generating capacity in central Newfoundland.

Interesting idea.

Would explain a lot, too.

- srbp -

Cost over-runs: Manitoba #nlpoli

2012-01-30T09:00:00.000-03:30

Want to know how far off cost estimates can be for a project like Muskrat Falls?

Look no further than Manitoba where the same people who reviewing Muskrat falls for the public utilities board are in spot of bother over plans and costs and what consumers will wind up getting nailed for:

Keeyask is a 600-megawatt generating station and Conawapa is 1,360 megawatts. In comparison, the 1,340-megawatt Limestone generating station was completed in 1990 at a cost of $1.43 billion. Conawapa's cost is 5.5 times higher.

The cost of the nearly complete Wuskwatim generating station has risen from the 2004 estimate of $900 million to $1.6 billion, an astonishing 78 per cent, and shows the higher cost estimates for the proposed projects are valid.

American demand is down.

Natural gas prices are in free-fall according to the article linked above, and as such, the price for electricity from natural gas is dropping along with it.

Anyone who thinks Muskrat Falls is somehow immune from all those considerations is just being naive.

But rest assured we are covered. Nalcor has a 15% cost over-run built into its cost estimate of $5.0 billion for the Muskrat Falls dam and power line to St. Jawns.

15% is greater than 78% isn’t it?

Didn’t think so.

- srbp -

Muskrat Surprise! #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-30T07:30:00.000-03:30

Paying attention pays its rewards.

On Saturday, The Telegram’s Russell Wangersky showed the benefit of paying attention to the fine print if you want to understand how far off Nalcor and Wade Locke are when they try and conjure up a price per kilowatt hour for Muskrat Falls electricity.

You don’t have to check fine print to understand how poorly Nalcor and the provincial government thinking has been on Muskrat Falls. All you have to do is look at the front end of the clip that NTV used last week of Ed Martin at the news conference announcing that Nalcor and Emera were going to miss their second deadline to finish a deal on the project.

Here’s what Martin said:

"Yesterday, for instance, we were talking about a particular topic, some new points came up which are very helpful to make sure we think through prior to conclusion, and it's no time to make a snap decision at that point."

New points.

Not old ones.

Not changed ones.

New ones.

Completely new.

Never though of before.

Yesterday.

Seven years after Nalcor started planning the most recent version of the Lower Churchill

14 months after Nalcor signed a fairly detailed set of terms that would form the basis of the agreement with Emera.

Someone brings up some “new points” that no one had thought of before.

And now they need some time to think those posers through.

Holy Homer Simpson Moment, Batman.

- srbp -

From the Earth to the Moon… in a sealskin spacesuit #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-29T07:30:00.000-03:30

Over at the Ceeb, John Furlong does his usual superb job of cutting through the bullshit. This week it’s dissecting the noise this week over what Ryan Cleary said, or what people claim he said and such.

Over at the Telegram, Pam Frampton goes at the same subject with similar observations.

Different style.

Same subject.

Both worth every second of your time.

When you are done with those two gems, compare that with Ryan Cleary’s observations on his own experience rendered by Geoff Meeker in his Telegram blog.

Ryan talks a good tale about what good journalists do and about bravery, the connection between what scares him and what he used to write about and about the relationship between reality and where he is. Where the first two columns are about Cleary’s comments and reaction to them, Meeker writes about Cleary’s favourite subject: himself.

The one thread you won’t see in Cleary’s usual pile of self-serving and entirely risible twaddle is the simple fact: as soon as the first tweet of criticism hit, Ryan Cleary ran from his own comments as fast as someone’s fingers could type the release. He wrapped himself in the sealskin flag.

He turned his back on the brave position he took and instead held aloft the banner of self-praise for his new role as champion of “conversation”, debate and that other spin-word “dialogue”.

Cleary told Meeker that being in Ottawa, one is on the moon. His riding is Earth, presumably the place of reality and presumably where Cleary loves to be.

How odd then, that as soon as he appeared in the real world – the one of his comments on the seal hunt – Cleary could not strap on his rocket pack fast enough and head home.

Read all that this weekend. Afterward, if you are not better clued into the world as it is, there’s something seriously wrong.

That’s where Meeker, Frampton and Furlong live.

Their subject?

On the moon.

- srbp -

Bad Sign 2: Muskrat Falls financials #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-28T11:10:00.001-03:30

The Telegram’s Russell Wangersky dissects Nalcor’s claim for Muskrat Falls electricity costs in the Saturday paper.

It’s simple.

It’s concise.

And, most importantly, you can understand it without being a math whiz.

What you see are the holes in Nalcor’s submission to the public utilities board. You can also see information that was readily available to Wade Locke. He ignored it for some reason.

As a result, Locke’s lengthy presentation turns out to be even weaker than it first appeared. Your humble e-scribbler didn’t even come close to describing the inadequacies of Locke’s recent assessment.

What you will also see are the fundamental concerns so many people in the province have about Muskrat Falls and the rush to build it. The cost of the project is enormous, the rationales are flimsy and the people who will inevitably pay for it are the taxpayers of this province.

Alone.

Jerome Kennedy tweeted a bit this week. One of his claims was about the rate for the average consumer would pay. Kennedy’s numbers – taken from Nalcor – just don’t add up. Wangersky’s column makes that pretty clear as well.

Read what Russell says.

Read all of it.

And then look again at all the news about Muskrat Falls this week.

If your blood isn’t running cold in your veins at that point, you must have the electric blanket turned up on bust.

- srbp -

Bad sign #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-28T10:30:00.000-03:30

The basic problem in the fishery is that the provincial fisheries minister has too much control over the industry and - inevitably - tends to use it all for political purposes rather than for the good of the industry.

So fisheries minister Darin King’s answer to the current mess in the industry is to go looking for more power for the fisheries minister.

Nothing good can come of that.

Nothing.

But it also shows just how fundamentally screwed up things are.

Oh yes, and you can’t slide a sheet of paper between the parties on their fisheries policy. King’s latest idea is straight out of the same worn-out playbook the provincial Liberals pushed in the last election. And it’s the same as the bullshit the NDP is pushing with their claim that the problem is corporate greed.

Damn fool ideas from the lot of them.

- srbp -

The old nothing could be further from the truth ploy #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-27T19:45:00.000-03:30

Ed Martin from Nalcor and Chris Huskilson from Emera held a news conference in St. John’s on Friday to announce that they will not have a deal on Muskrat Falls finished by the January 31 deadline.

They issued a short, joint statement in addition to holding a news conference.

Ed Martin:

We have made significant progress on the agreements and we are nearing completion; however, we will not have all the detailed work completed by January 31 as previously stated.

We do have the majority of agreements completed. This consists of thousands of pages of contract details. Our next steps are to finalize all the detail in the agreements and complete our internal reviews and due diligence.

Both parties are committed to a quality outcome and we want to ensure clarity in these agreements.

Chris Huskilson:

The principles of the term sheet are still the foundation of all discussions and they have not changed.

We understand that there will be some people who will believe this is more significant than it is and we feel compelled to emphasize that our relationship is strong, the term sheet principles remain and they are guiding our work.

We continue to make progress and we will ensure that people are informed once we have finalized the agreements.

This is the second deadline the companies missed. Last November they slide the deadline from the end of that month until the end of January.

They announced the development with a simple statement:

“We are making good progress on the agreements,” said Ed Martin, President and CEO of Nalcor Energy. “However, we need more time to complete the volume of work required. Our relationship with Emera remains strong and both parties are committed to a quality outcome. These are important agreements and we’ll take the time to do them right."

Nalcor and Emera are targeting year‐end for completion of key agreements and both parties will then conduct review and due diligence prior to the end of January.’'

"We remain committed to the principles of the Term Sheet and look forward to finalizing an agreement with our partner Nalcor this year,” said Chris Huskilson,
President and CEO of Emera Inc. “This is an agreement that will be mutually beneficial for our customers in the region for decades to come. The additional time we are taking is modest in the grand scheme of things.”

Note the similar words.

But note the differences:

This time there is no new deadline even though they have completed “the majority” of the agreements. Last fall they said they would finish the agreements within a month and then allow another month for “due diligence”.

This time they actually came to St. John’s to make a big deal about the missed deadline. That made sure people would wonder about the high level of sensitivity the companies had to the possibility that some people might get the wrong idea.

Whoever those unnamed people are, they have enough influence to frighten the shit out of the two companies. You can tell because Huskilson actually mentioned their concern in his bit of the statement: "We understand that there will be some people who will believe this is more significant than it is …”

As it is, the big show in St. John’s telegraphed that maybe the deal isn’t so secure after all. Think of it like trotting out the deathly ill despot so people won’t speculate that he is about to kick off. They usually only do that right before he snuffs it, thereby confirming the rumours were right all along.

And if you really want to know how not to reassure people, try this line from Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter in Friday’s Chronicle Herald:

"They're now not even going to bother to set another deadline because they feel they're close to getting it completed, which I think is all a very good thing. It's all very good news, in fact."

It’s the Rule of Opposites, or the rule of opposites or the rule of opposites or the rule of opposites.

- srbp -

The old victim ploy #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-27T19:00:00.000-03:30

In a scrum on Friday, Premier Kathy Dunderdale decided to attack the Telegram’s editorial writer.

She attacked the paper for things the Friday editorial did not say.

For good measure she claimed that she would now suffer further attacks from the newspaper in retaliation for her comments.

For anyone who read the editorial, she was full of crap.

Obviously full of it.

Painfully, blatantly, obviously full of it.

Just like the editorial painfully skewered the Premier and her administration for stuff they did and the implications of it.

Since the Premier was so obviously full of crap in her scrum, there are only a few possible explanations:

She didn’t read the editorial but relied on a summary by the best experts available..
She read it but didn’t understand it.
She didn’t read the Auditor General’s report but relied on a summary prepared by the best experts available.
She read the AG’s report but didn’t understand it.
She didn’t read the letters that went to the AG but relied instead on what the best experts available told her they said.
She read the letters but didn’t understand them.
Stung by the truth of the editorial and the damage she’s done to her own credibility, she decided to play the victim card and make herself out as the aggrieved party.

That last one is a rather calculated, cynical ploy but at least it is the only explanation that doesn’t make the Premier out to be lazy or stupid.

Take your pick.

The only thing we know for sure is that the Premier wasn’t right.

- srbp -

The old cabinet documents ploy #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-27T07:30:00.000-03:30

Premier Kathy Dunderdale and her ministers refuse to hand over documents on more than $5.0 billion in public works spending by the Conservatives since 2004.

The documents are cabinet secrets, as their argument goes, and under the access to information law cabinet cannot release that information to him.

like her predecessor, Premier Dunderdale was unavailable to talk to reporters earlier on Thursday but she did have time to call an open line radio show to talk about the Auditor General and other things. Dunderdale eventually turned up at a 2:00 PM scrum to take reporters questions. Predictably she rejected any claims that she is withholding information improperly.

Here’s one bit, as relayed by CBC:

Every piece of information that comes in to government is available to the auditor general. It's just the preparation of material used specifically for the preparation of cabinet documents is not available.

Elsewhere in the scrum Dunderdale explained that the Auditor General had others ways to get the information he needed. When asked to explain that by reporters, she couldn’t. Dunderdale also admitted that there was actually no infrastructure strategy. Instead there were documents prepared for cabinet that gave a complete overview of the government’s capital works spending.

But anyway, by her own account, therefore, that’s the sort of thing that the Auditor General wouldn’t be allowed to see. The AG wanted to look at a strategy and assess the performance. By Dunderdale’s account there’d be no way he could see what was included in the non-existent strategy and what wasn’t.

Sounds foolish.

And it is foolish.

It’s also familiar.

In 2006, Danny Williams and his cabinet (including Kathy Dunderdale) took exactly the same position when another Auditor General asked for documents on the fibre optic project.

No way, they said: cabinet documents.

Secret, don’t you know, old chap.

Access to information law and all that, what what.

Now in that instance the government - through a resolution in the House of Assembly – asked the AG to “investigate all the details and circumstances” of the controversial deal. That’s really no different than the AG doing the job he got from a law passed by the House of Assembly (the Auditor General Act).

Same situation.

Same effort to hide information.

And ultimately, cabinet’s excuses are still just as flimsy.

Your humble e-scribbler pointed out in 2006 that cabinet can use its own discretion and release any documents it likes. They did it in 2004 and, eventually, Williams and cabinet relented with the fibre optic review and gave the AG what he needed.

Now it took four months, mind you, for them to do the right thing. But after lots of public pressure, Williams and his cabinet reversed their stand. In effect, Williams and his cabinet (including Kathy Dunderdale) admitted the argument they’d used the year before was utter bullshit.

Just to be sure, folks, what we are talking about here is just provincial capital works spending dolled up as something much grander than it ever was. They called it “infrastructure” but essentially it was – and is – the sort of road building, road paving, schools building and all the other capital works that government shave done for decades.

And Auditors General before the current one have had no problem looking at the documents, totalling up the amounts, checking the way things were done and then reporting what they’ve found.

Until now.

For some reason Kathy Dunderdale and her cabinet want to keep a giant chunk of public works spending over the past eight years away from the Auditor General and his Excel spreadsheet.

The question is why.

Maybe it has something to do with what the AG did get to look at. The Labrador Highway and public publics repairs chapters don’t make for pretty reading.

Maybe it has something to do with just how much political consideration goes into public works decisions like road paving.

Maybe it has something to do with what SRBP already noted about capital works under the Tories. So much of the “stimulus” and the infrastructure program was nothing more than regular public works spending announced and re-announced and announced over again. Through it all, though, it appears that massive cost over-runs and inexplicable delays measured in years are routine for government public works projects.

Some of the most embarrassing of the administrative messes cost the provincial government a cabinet minister in 2009. Remember the Lewisporte and Fleur de Lys health care centres and Paul Oram? That was about capital works decision-making within one of the departments that refused to turn over documents to the Auditor General.

Whatever the reason, one thing is clear: early on in his tenure, while Danny Williams could keep up the old cabinet documents ploy for six months, six years later, the public won’t put up with that sort of political tomfoolery any more from any one.

- srbp -

NL AG: Dunderdale unprecedented doc block “not a good thing“ #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-26T20:10:00.001-03:30

From Canadian Press:

The veteran auditor, in an interview Thursday, said the government's sweeping denial of documents on the basis of cabinet confidentiality has left him no way to trace how and why spending decisions were made.

"I can certainly say it's not a good thing," he said.

"The auditor general's office is a very important link in the chain of accountability in government. And when governments spend money and make decisions, we go in and look at how they spend the money and how they make these decisions."

Loveys, who plans to retire in May after a 33-year auditing career, said he has never seen such an information block.

"I've seen some refusals, but the very broad interpretation is something I've never seen before. It's inconsistent with reviews we've done in the past."

- srbp -

No threat #nlpoli

2012-01-26T14:00:00.000-03:30

In a meeting of the committee that manages the business affairs for the House of Assembly, the Tories approved an additional $150,000 for the Liberals. The New Democrats got nothing, even though they have a significantly larger caucus.

Check this CBC report for a good synopsis.

The Tories used a 2008 report to justify the extra Liberal cash. Back then, they denied the Liberals the cash recommended by an independent review and, instead, rewarded the New Democrats.

You can take all the political chatter about this little episode but don’t spend too much time on it. Instead focus on what this little play by the Tories says about their opinion of which party poses the bigger political threat to the Tories.

Hint: it ain’t the Liberals.

And frankly, that’s a pretty sensible call at this point.

Since last October, the provincial Liberals haven’t done anything to suggest they are sharper than they used to be, more focused or anything else positive. In fact, if anything, the Liberals have actually slid backwards. A series of internal problems garnered the caucus some embarrassing headlines. Their media work – such as it is – remains clunky and amateurish. There’s no sign they are doing anything to develop an A Game, let alone bring it. More money isn’t likely to make any difference to them.

On the other hand, more money would have let the New Democrats hire staff to reinforce the ones they’ve got. The Dippers have been hitting the Tories hard lately; well, a lot harder than the Liberals. If they’ve been able to do damage with few resources you don’t need much of an imagination to figure out what they could do with more.

So let’s see what happens over the next few months.

The Tories have never been more vulnerable:

Sound financial management, accountability and transparency? That’s been pretty much demolished by the latest Auditor General’s report.
The Kiewit story points back to some serious problems with the 2008 Hebron deal.
We are pushing up on the latest deadline for Nalcor to cut a deal with Emera on Muskrat Falls.
Public opposition to the Muskrat Falls proposal is growing.
There’s trouble at the mill in Corner Brook.
The government is likely to run real deficits over the next few years: money will be tighter.

Let’s see which of the opposition parties – if either – can actually score any points against the Tories.

The Tories have already shown us who they think is a bigger political threat.

How good is their assessment?

- srbp -

AG Report–Government Liabilities #nlpoli

2012-01-26T11:00:00.000-03:30

The latest report by the province’s Auditor General has some information to bear in mind as we talk about Muskrat Falls.

Note that total liabilities went up from the end of March 2010 to the end of March 2011. It now stands at more than $13 billion.

But…

Financial assets are now slightly below $5.0 billion. That’s the cash you need to keep a eye on when it comes to Muskrat Falls.

Just keep those figures in mind.

They’ll come up again.

- srbp -

Tories hide spending documents from Auditor General #nlpoli

2012-01-26T07:30:00.000-03:30

The culture of secrecy that is Danny Williams’ legacy in provincial politics is firmly institutionalised. The provincial Conservative’s war against oversight and adequate oversight of their management of the province’s finances now extends to withholding information from the province’s Auditor General.

When the province’s Auditor General went looking for the Conservative’s oft-mentioned infrastructure strategy, he found out they didn’t have one. You’ll find that gem in the first few pages of the latest report from the Auditor General on how the provincial government spends public money.

A committee of officials was supposed to develop the strategy. While they didn’t do that, according to the AG, the group did produce a draft “report”. But the draft report was never finalized.

When the auditor general’s officials started contacting departments to get information on capital works spending, they ran smack into a legal roadblock. The departments refused to release the information to the Auditor General and cited the provincial Access to Information Act as justification. The documents would reveal cabinet deliberations according to justice department lawyers, and as such they couldn’t turn them over to the Auditor general.

The access to information laws were never intended to cover officials like the Auditor General. You can tell that because of the way the law is worded. The purpose of the Act is to make public bodies more accountable to the public by providing the rules under which the public may obtain information held by government and its agencies.

Members of the public – known as applicants in the Act – apply as set out in Section 8. Under section 18, heads of department must refuse to disclose cabinet documents to applicants.

But the Auditor General? Not a person as defined by the Act or an ordinary member of the public.

As such there wouldn’t be a conflict between the access law and the Auditor General Act.

The AG’s got his own legal opinions and they pretty much wind up in the same place: there’s no legal reason for the provincial government to hide information from the AG. Unfortunately, he and his lawyers have taken the weak premise of accepting that the access law actually governs the AG in the first place.

And all the AG has done is filed a report with the Tory-dominated House of Assembly. That might make the upcoming session interesting and tense but it doesn’t settle the legal issues. The AG needs to take it downtown and drag the attorney general in front of a judge.

Now this is not the first time the provincial government has misused the access laws to keep information from the public or other officials. In fact, the current administration is notorious for its efforts to hide information from the public. Around these parts, SRBP likes to call it freedom from information.

In fact, in the seven years SRBP has been around, this sort of stuff is part for the course.

No strategy.

No documents.

No audit.

No surprise.

- srbp -

Hebron work leaving the province? #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-25T14:30:00.000-03:30

Via CBC:

Minister Jerome Kennedy said Kiewit won't do some key Hebron work, worth $75 to 100 million, at Marystown and it may have to be done elsewhere.

Apparently Kennedy and Premier Kathy Dunderdale met with Kiewit officials last week.

Interestingly enough, while they were there, the Premier’s communications director tweeted:

Premier @KathyDunderdale & @jerome_kennedy meeting energy experts NYC today. Part of ongoing work to ensure best informed decisions.

No mention of Kiewit in her tweets or anywhere else but a day or so later Kennedy suddenly started tweeting about Muskrat Falls and all the great benefits to come from that project. Kennedy even mentioned the old chestnut about how many jobs the project would create.

- srbp -

Related: Hebron benefits less than touted (November 2011)

With a bit of straw and a cocoanut #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-25T14:10:00.001-03:30

Perhaps we should do as the wag said.

Perhaps we should appoint a royal commission to find noob Bloc NDP member of parliament Ryan Cleary’s position on the seal hunt.

A couple of nights ago Cleary spoke frankly about the seal hunt.

Ordinarily, there’d be no nationalist symbol like the seal hunt that Cleary wouldn’t monger. There is no ethnic touchstone of its kind that Cleary would not grope, fondle or otherwise maul.

But this time he spoke frankly, as he had in 2008.

Brave thing to do in these parts where politicians seldom do genuinely brave things like have opinions of their own and voice them. Normally what you get is lots of pledges to be a strong voice for this cove or that tickle. They all claim they’ll speak loudly about this, that or the other.

Fight?

Sure if you listen to the crowd of local crackies either seeking office or safely on the public tit, they’ll fight any time, any place against anyone over any thing.

Have no doubt about just how untamed and untameable these ponies are, either.

They’ll be the first to tell you, even if all that they really do is stuff a bit of straw in the belt of their pants and clop a pair of cocoanut halves together for a good show.

So after Cleary spoke frankly on a touchy subject, two things happened.

For one, Cleary’s political opponents and a whole lot more besides scrambled to shit on him everywhere and anywhere they could. News releases from Connies in Ottawa, John Efford on the Open Line, Siobhan Coady on da facebook all tearing big strips off Cleary. A hundred jobs to be lost in Corner Brook was nothing in the news coverage compared to Cleary’s words, accurately reported by the local media..

For two, Cleary issued a news release in which he disowned his frank and brave words. He blamed the whole thing on the reporter who first raised the seal hunt issue and accused the media of misquoting him.

Cleary even felt up the touchstone - pledged his eternal, unquestioned and undying support for seal bashing - just so there could be no further about as to his true feelings.

But what are those true feelings?

Good question:

I will not shy away from any issue as a federal MP. I will continue to embrace all sides of every argument in the interest of healthy and reasoned decision making. There may be room to negotiate a better deal for our fish products generally.

Let me re-iterate, I am not proposing to ban the commercial seal hunt in any way.

If we don't do things differently, we will end up with the same result every time. We can't be afraid of the conversation.

Embrace all sides?

Yes friends, as he ran from the conversation, as he abandoned the debate, Cleary proudly clopped his cocoanuts that much harder and stuffed some extra straw in his belt to show how much of a maverick he really is.

- srbp -

Corner Brook braces for job losses #nlpoli

2012-01-25T11:00:00.000-03:30

An internal Kruger memo leaked to news media suggest that the papermaker is planning to lay off upwards of 135 workers at the company’s operation in Corner Brook.

The memo notes that comparable plants in North America function with 250 employees compared to the 385 current on the books at Corner Brook. The memo also indicates the Corner Brook mill produces paper at $140 per ton compared to $100 per ton elsewhere.

The provincial government heavily subsidizes the Corner Brook mill already.

- srbp -

Never give up. Never Surrender. #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-25T09:29:00.001-03:30

Ryan Cleary's news release about the seal hunt, arising from his comments to the Fisheries Broadcast:

I will not back down from any issue: Cleary

St. John's – NDP MP Ryan Cleary (St. John's South-Mount Pearl) released the following statement to clarify misleading comments in the media concerning his position on the Newfoundland and Labrador commercial seal hunt.

"On Sunday I was asked in an e-mail by John Furlong, host of the CBC's Fisheries Broadcast, to clarify the NDP position on the seal hunt. He asked whether the NDP is changing its position on the hunt or proposing there be a buyout of licences, 'Someone is telling me that the NDP might also (along with yours truly!) be sensing that the writing may be on the wall,' Furlong wrote.

Furlong interviewed me and I made it clear that the NDP stand has not changed. The party and I are in full support of the commercial seal hunt – period. I then reacted to Furlong's column (Death on the ice: Time to pull the plug on the seal hunt? John Furlong www.CBC.ca/nl January 21, 2012) Furlong begins his article with the statement, 'There's no question in my mind that the commercial seal hunt is probably on the way out. So does anyone care?'

The answer is yes. Of course everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador cares.

We cannot hide behind the debate and pretend that the market for seals is not in trouble. Markets for seal products are closed in the United States, the European Union, and Russia. It is also unclear what is happening in the Chinese market. Facing this reality head on is the only way to address this situation.

The debate about the future viability of the industry is a worthy one and it needs to happen. It can only be a good thing as we chart a future course for our overall fishery.

Having this debate does not signify in any way an end to the hunt – we simply need to start talking. For too long, simply raising the seal hunt issue has been taboo. It shouldn't be.

I will not shy away from any issue as a federal MP. I will continue to embrace all sides of every argument in the interest of healthy and reasoned decision making. There may be room to negotiate a better deal for our fish products generally.

Let me re-iterate, I am not proposing to ban the commercial seal hunt in any way.

If we don't do things differently, we will end up with the same result every time. We can't be afraid of the conversation."

-30-
For more information contact:

Matt White, Office of Ryan Cleary M.P., 772-4608 or 682-1653, ryan.cleary.a1@parl.gc.ca

- srbp -

Former Tory fin min asks more Muskrat questions #nlpoli

2012-01-25T09:00:00.000-03:30

Peckford-era finance minister Dr. John Collins has another letter to the editor in the Telegram questioning Muskrat Falls.

The continued problem with Nalcor’s (and government’s) decision to date respecting the project’s rationale and validity thus remains painfully obvious.

The basis question is not whether Nalcor is wrong in postulating Muskrat’s power to be more cheaply accessible than alternative combined sources on-island.

The real question is whether or not they are right in forcing that opinion on the public, absent cogent, unbiased information on related issues troubling knowledgeable observers, expressed time and again.

We all can’t be wrong.

- srbp -

Wading through Locke on Muskrat (Part 3) #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-25T07:30:00.000-03:30

[continued from Part 2]

Debt

One of the issues Wade Locke set out to address was the impact Muskrat Falls would have on public debt. For some other information on Muskrat Falls and public debt, check this earlier post.

Slide 43 is a table of debt servicing amounts based on the amount borrowed and the rate of interest amortized over a 30 year time. For example, $3.0 billion at 5% would cost $195 million in annual payments to pay the principle and interest. on the opposite end of Locke’s scale, $8.0 billion at 10% would cost $849 million each year.

Earlier in his presentation, Locke asserted that the provincial government can currently borrow money at 5% while Nalcor can borrow money at 7.5%.

The money to meet those payments would come from only one source: electricity rates. As noted right at the beginning of the presentation, the entire project is proposed based on having the ratepayers of Newfoundland and Labrador carry 100% of the cost.

This money would be in addition to other Nalcor costs for producing electricity in the province. The public utilities board is responsible for setting electricity rates in the province. The board must allow Nalcor to recover its costs plus provide a rate of return – essentially a profit – on its operations. The board will also add an amount for Newfoundland Power, the electricity distributor on the island to determine the rate paid by residential and industrial consumers.

One of the important pieces of information needed to determine the impact on the public debt and rates would be the amount of money, if any, that Nalcor would raise or how it would raise the money. Equity investors, borrowing or subsidy from the provincial government all carry different implications for public debt.

There are different possibilities. Locke did not discuss them. Instead he relied on other information as he presented on Slide 44. Locke did not indicate in the slides or his presentation where he got the information.

According to Locke (Slide 44), Nalcor would generate $550 million from its proposed rate (7.5 cents per kilowatt hour). This would allow Nalcor to cover a loan of $8 billion at 5% with $100 million left for “other expenditures”., according to Locke.

He also claims that revenue from “residual power” would generate up to $60 million. This “residual power” is the power other than that designated for use in Newfoundland and Labrador or the portion shipped free to Nova Scotia.

As a result, Locke concludes, the extra debt won’t be a problem for the provincial government or Nalcor. Locke has not explained how he reaches this conclusion other than by the circular logic that since Nalcor has provided enough theoretical money in its estimates to cover the payments, the payments will be covered and therefore there is no problem.

Since Locke does not explore other possible financing options, he has no basis to offer any assessment of how those financing options might affect public debt and public spending.

For example, the provincial government might opt to give borrow money at its lower rate of interest and give it to Nalcor as a gift. That may not be the current plan but it is one way of handling unanticipated massive cost over-runs. That would affect the amount Nalcor could charge in rates and it also changes the amount taxpayers would have to divert from other expenditures to service the larger, direct public.

There are other curious points in Locke’s slides. He does not explain why the residual power would net slightly more than 10% of the revenue generated within Newfoundland and Labrador for the same amount of electricity.

Most significantly, though, Locke does not explain where this power would be sold. There are no current sales for it, nor are there any likely sales given the state of markets in nearby states or provinces. in other words, Locke is just speculating and his amounts for “residual power” are fictitious.

Financing such a large project has significant implications for public finance in the province. Locke disposes of the issue in two slides. They appear to be based on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions or claims such as Locke’s assertion that Nalcor’s proposed rates would definitely give money “left over to retire other provincial debt, to fund other public services or to reduce taxes.”

At best, those are policy decisions not taken, yet Locke pushes them out there as if they were real benefits. The assumed benefits are based on other apparently untested assumptions, including the one that Nalcor’s calculations are right.

Assuming the can opener

Locke’s last series of slides (45 and 46) cap off a series of unsubstantiated claims with a flourish of more.

For example, on Slide 45, Locke claims that a connection to the ‘North American grid” would allow other energy developments including onshore wind potential on the island and Labrador or “stranded” natural gas.

The province is already connected to the North American grid from Labrador. We do not need Muskrat Falls to facilitate the development of wind energy in Labrador.

An interconnection to Nova Scotia would allow Nalcor and others to develop wind potential on the island. We don’t need Muskrat falls to do that.

As for exports, Locke failed to examine any potential export markets. There are none, especially for very expensive power at Muskrat Falls that grows even more expensive when transported the long distances from Labrador or the island to market.

Locke does not seem to recognise the logical problem in his claim about gas. If gas is too expensive to produce electricity to beat Muskrat Falls electricity, then it is highly unlikely that natural gas could make electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador that could be cost competitive in markets where even Muskrat Falls is too expensive to penetrate successfully.

Recall that, as Jim Feehan noted, US producers are making electricity from natural gas next to the market that costs no more than four cents per kilowatt hour to produce and very little to transport. If Muskrat Falls electricity will cost at least 14.3 cents per kilowatt hour in St. John’s, imagine what it would cost to shop the same electricity to Ontario? No wonder Nalcor can’t sell the power outside the province and could only give it away free to Nova Scotia.

Locke’s Conclusion

Locke’s conclusion essentially repeats the untested assumptions/assertions of his presentation.

He does add a new one:

Without the extra energy made available by Muskrat Falls, there is serious questions whether or not the mining projects expected in Labrador within the next 10 years can proceed. Currently, we do not have sufficient recall power. If all these projects proceed as expected, we may need another 400 to 500 MW of power. This may require the development of additional resources on the island (hydro, wind, etc.)

His claim that “we do not have sufficient recall power” is simply not true. In the same way that Locke ignored surplus electricity on the island , he also ignores the 5800 megawatts of electricity available in Labrador for future development.

Churchill Falls electricity is available under the right circumstances, including a use of the Electrical Power Control Act’s provisions on electricity control and availability within the province.

The rest is just grasping. Labrador also offers other hydro-electric and wind resources that could meet an industrial need. What’s more, Muskrat Falls could supply a Labrador contingency on its own without an interconnection to the island. After all, if the island and Nova Scotia would need 60% of Muskrat Falls electricity, the remainder would be insufficient to meet an industrial development of the size Locke suggests. It would be far cheaper and easier to meet Labrador needs with Labrador power rather than develop “additional resources on the island” that Locke and Nalcor have already insisted either don’t exist or are too expensive to develop.

- srbp -

Firearms Safety

2012-01-24T21:30:00.000-03:30

The firearms instructor who shot himself in the foot – literally – during a weapons handling course just lost the latest round in court trying to get some compensation for the consequences of having the video of his unfortunate incident posted to the Internet.

Follow the links on that one to get every twist and turn of the lengthy story. It started in 2004.

- srbp -

Ryan Cleary on ending the seal hunt, circa 2008 #nlpoli

2012-01-24T21:04:00.001-03:30

Update: This is the same column Michael Connors tweeted on Tuesday afternoon, but copied to a different website

Update Update: And then macleans.ca noticed Ryan…again.

To be fair to Ryan Cleary, this is not the first time he has suggested we need to stop smashing seals over the head and selling off bits and pieces of them.

Sure Cleary’s the guy who has never met a nationalist myth he wouldn’t monger or touchstone he wouldn’t grope, but he has been known to take a different view of the seal hunt.

A quick google search Tuesday night turned up a column of his from April 2008 from the old Spindy. Someone posted it to an IFAW website.

Try not to giggle at the idea of Ryan Cleary using the word reality.

“REALITY CHECK: Time to Face the Fact the Newfoundland Seal Hunt is Doomed.”

The Independent, Newfoundland and Labrador Newspaper

By Columnist RYAN CLEARY
Saturday, April 19, 2008

Time to face the fact the Newfoundland seal hunt is doomed. We cannot save it, not right now, no matter how right and desperate we are to try.

The forces against the commercial hunt - dark though so many of them may be - have become too passionate and powerful. The animal rights crowd is winning the public relations war with the average Joe and Jane on the world street. The continued battle is doing more harm than good to our economy and international image.

We would be better off if the commercial hunters retreated -at least for now, until a world appetite develops such that the method of harvest is secondary to the mouths that are fed and bodies clothed.

It hasn't been that way in a dog's age. The Newfoundland hunt was once about survival, plain and simple. Every part of the animal was used to keep outport body and soul together. More and more it's about pelts and prices.

That's not enough to justify a hunt. The seal has become the modern-day buffalo in terms of waste.

Given that so many of the world's cupboards appear to be bare or headed there, a new hunger for seal (and our fish, but that's not this week's topic) may not be that far off. It was only last week the Globe carried a two-page feature on the rising prices of food around the planet and a crisis around the corner.

The world will eat seal when it's hungry enough to eat seal. It wasn't long ago lobster was the spider of the sea.

As for the politicians defending the hunt - federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn chief among them - he's been criticized in the national media for using the hunt to improve the Conservative lot in the Atlantic provinces.

It sure looks that way. At the very least, Hearn was stunned enough to play directly into Paul Watson's hands. Hearn, the poor over-his-head shagger, can't win. More on that in a moment.

On Thursday of this week The Globe and Mail ran eight letters to the editor under the headline, The many truths about sealing.

A sample of the anti-hunt sentiments:

"I will not vacation in Canada and will avoid buying Canadian products until the seal slaughter stops," writes Pat Ginsbach of Kerrville, Tex.

Anita Rutz of New York mentions the recent loss of four sealers from Quebec. "If they weren't committing acts against God's creatures, they would be alive."

Peter Bowker of Ontario says if government could find $50 million to pay pig farmers not to raise pigs, why can't the same amount be found to pay sealers not to seal? "Or must we admit that the hunt, as it is conducted, is really a cultural ritual, like cockfighting and fox hunting?"

Many Canadians who can sympathise with the economic necessity of the seal hunt can't get past the term "skinned alive," writes Birgit Van De Wetering of Ontario. "It belies the image of warmth and folksiness the Newfoundland Tourist Board is trying to sell us."

Right or wrong, an anti-seal hunt attitude has taken hold. That's the reality.

We are right to defend sealing as part of our heritage. An attack on the hunt is an attack on who we are as a people and where we come from. Remove the emotion from the debate, however, and it's clear the commercial hunt is no longer critical to our survival.

Today's hunt is as much about pride - our God-given right to hunt - as money. That attitude got us nowhere with fish. It's getting us nowhere with seals.

I would argue the hunt has marginal value. The potential loss to tourism alone may far outweigh the benefits of a continued hunt.
God knows the hunt has political power.

The Globe went after Hearn earlier this week in an editorial critical of the Canadian Coast Guard's recent boarding and seizure of the environmental vessel Farley Mowat and the arrest of her captain and first officer. The paper described the move as a "grossly disproportionate response" to the efforts of opponents to document the seal hunt.

For his part, Paul Watson, head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, said the action was taken to seize graphic videotapes of the hunt. The Globe, on the other hand, noted the action was a way for Hearn and his party to redeem themselves with East Coasters.
God knows they need redeeming.

Premier Danny Williams waded into the debate with a guest column of his own in the Globe. He proposes the banning of hakapiks. But such a move will not appease anyone as long as the ice beneath the seal is stained red with blood.

Ironically, ending the commercial seal hunt may spell an end to Watson, who relies on it financially as much as any sealer from Twillingate.

The Globe also carried letters in defence of the hunt. Kyle McIver of Kingston says he finds no difference between clubbing seals with hakapiks, fish asphyxiating on decks or using high-pressure metal bolts to sever spinal cords of cattle. "If sealing is basically akin to agricultural meat production and fishing, then the primary reason to defend seals is reduced to the fact they are cute with big round eyes and soft fur, and the argument fails."

The argument may fail, but the big round eyes will always win. Until the people are hungry enough.

- srbp -

On Rights, the Charter notwithstanding #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-24T15:30:00.000-03:30

The Department of Political Science Distinguished Lecture series presents Dr. Janet Hiebert on the topic:

Constitutional Experimentation and Canada’s Notwithstanding Clause: Crude Political Compromise or Constitutional Innovation?
February 2, 2012, 7: 00 PM in SN 2109 (Science Building, Memorial University, St. John’s campus)

Comparative political and legal scholars have observed what they consider to be an important constitutional innovation: the emergence of an alternative model of a bill of rights, which has been adopted in several Westminster-based parliamentary systems.

The form these bills of rights take differs significantly from more conventional models, because they do not compel legislatures to comply with judicial interpretations of rights.

These constitutional innovations raise the following two questions:

How does this new model conceive of the function of a bill of rights?
Given the conceptual contribution of Canada’s notwithstanding clause to this new model, should Canadians revisit the deep scepticism in which they regard this political power to set aside the effects of a Charter ruling?

Dr. Janet Hiebert is head of the political studies department and Professor of Political Studies at Queen’s University.

She is author of two books about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Charter Conflicts: What is Parliament's Role? (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2002), and Limiting Rights: The Dilemma of Judicial Review (McGill-Queen's University Press, 1996), and has written numerous papers and chapters on the politics of rights and on campaign finance laws in Canada.

Hiebert has served as a member of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission, an independent, non-partisan body with responsibility to readjust the electoral boundaries in the province of Ontario
.
Her current research project examines how the recent adoption of bill of rights in several parliamentary jurisdictions affects political practices, policy development and legislative behaviour (Canada, NZ, UK, Australia).

For more information contact Dr. Matthew Kerby, 864-3093 or kerbym@mun.ca

- srbp -

Bell 206 L-4 Long Ranger Medical Evacuation #nlpoli

2012-01-24T11:00:00.000-03:30

For those following the story on the helicopter used for medical evacuation in the province, here is the one people are talking about.

It’s the Long Ranger version of the Bell 206. The one in the video below is operated by a medical centre in the United States. You’ll find 206 L-4’s and later versions like the Bell 407 in use across North America.

Note the size of the cabin.

Can’t store oxygen except on top of the patient? Can’t move around enough to perform cardio-pulmonary resuscitation or intubation without landing the aircraft? That doesn’t sound right if the aircraft is properly configured.

Bear in mind that the 206 L-4 is a light helicopter. Others in the same class – Eurocopter EC-135 or EC-145 – offer comparable space. Sure that patient’s feet are forward in the space that would be occupied by a co-pilot in another configuration but the main cabin area seems to have quite a bit of room. Again, that’s if the aircraft is properly configured.

Just to give you another perspective, here’s a video of a medical evacuation for a traffic accident victim using a Bell 407. That’s essentially the 206 L-4 with a different engine and some other minor changes.

Skip through to about the 3:45 point in the video when someone opens the access door. You can now see the patient in position and get a good idea of the space in the main part of the cabin.

So far the information in the public domain is pretty skimpy. You can’t tell if this is a real issue or just part of the pre-budget circus of demands and requests.

The union representing the aero-medical staff hasn’t really described the problem very effectively. Maybe the problem is the way the aircraft is fitted out, as opposed to the complete failure of the type. After all, 206s have been in use as air ambulances for decades in this province.

The union also hasn’t proposed what type of aircraft they think would meet the need if the Long Ranger can’t do it. If the 206/407 can’t cut it, how big a helicopter do they need?

According to the CBC online story the union is saying that “consideration should be given to a helicopter similar to those used in search and rescue and offshore.”

That would certainly solve the space problem, but the overall capability of the helicopter (EH-101 or S-92) is way beyond what you typically see in the air ambulance role. The operating cost would be huge in comparison to the 206/407 type. Outside of Cougar Helicopters, no company in the province operates S-92s and the EH-101 is only used by the Royal Canadian Air Force search and rescue squadrons.

- srbp -

Kremlinology 37: United in Differences

2012-01-24T09:00:00.000-03:30

As the Newfoundland and Labrador news release noted, the energy ministers from the four Atlantic provinces got together on Monday for a gab session.

Those who stood waiting for Jerome!’s latest tweet on Muskrat now know where The Oracle had been all day.

In Prince Edward Island, they issued their own release, including talk of Muskrat Falls.

All the Nova Scotians did was flip out a link to the release from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Odd that, donchya think?

Odd that PEI did their own thing, but the Nova Scotians didn’t.

Odd given the close relationship between the baymen and the bluenosers on energy issues these days. They should be on the same wave length right down to the fact that Kathy Dunderdale’s comms director is now issuing releases for the Nova Scotia energy department.

Maybe it’s nothing.

Then again, we are only a week away from the second deadline for Emera and Nalcor to finish their agreement on Muskrat Falls. Maybe the the Nova Scotians don’t want to draw attention to Muskrat Falls if they have a sense that the deadline may get shifted back again.

Let’s see what happens between now and January 31.

- srbp -

Wading through Locke on Muskrat (Part 2) #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-24T07:30:00.000-03:30

[continued from Part 1]

Oil Prices

In Slide 20, Locke turns a comparison of the cost elements of Muskrat Falls and Nalcor’s isolated island scenario into a chart. Locke notes in red at the bottom of the slide that the only difference between the two scenarios is fuel prices.

In Slides 21 through 26, Locke looks at the pricing assumptions Nalcor used for crude oil and finds them in line with other assessments. In Slides 26, 27 and 28 Locke transitions to a discussion of current prices for natural gas.

Gas

In general, Locke spent the greatest amount of his presentation on natural gas. He did not, at any point, offer an assessment of possible alternatives to Muskrat Falls. The sections on gas – imported, local and shale – contain omissions and errors that seriously affect the usefulness of Locke’s comments and the validity of his claims and conclusions.

Instead, Locke’s presentation appeared to refute or attack potential threats to the project he previously endorsed. His language in describing shale gas very much suggests an adversarial as opposed to analytical approach in his treatment of these potential alternatives.

Imported Natural Gas

Starting at Slide 26 and continuing through to Slide 37, Locke looks at imported natural gas prices in great detail. He looks at possible future price scenarios based on anticipated demand growth.

While Locke spent a huge amount of time on this issue, his analysis starts from an unfounded premise. That is, he starts with the assumption that the construction costs for a natural gas plant are the same as for any other thermal generation (the Nalcor Holyrood scenario).

You will find this starting point in the comments on Slide 20:

While the isolated Island is $2.2 billion (PV 8%) more expensive, the difference is driven by fuel costs.

Maybe there is an alternative fuel, like natural gas, that can eliminate this differential. Let’s look at this more
carefully.

One would expect that an experienced economist like Locke would construct a straight forward comparison along the lines of the Slide 19. That one had all the costs of the isolated scenario on one side and Muskrat Falls on the other.

Locke could have used existing information for some of it. Bruneau’s 2005 study proposed a configuration and gave a preliminary cost estimate. Locke claims to have reviewed it but for some unknown reason he simply ignored it as a basis for comparison.

D’oh! - Ignoring the Obvious

Unfortunately for Locke – and his audience – he didn’t do that really obvious comparison. All Locke had to do was calculate a few values, like the capital cost, the total natural gas fuel cost for the same time period as in the other comparisons and there’s the whole thing.

But that isn’t what Locke did. He never discussed the capital expenditures. Nor did he ever equate the total cost of fuel a natural gas plant would need to deliver the electricity needed across the entire period used in the other comparisons.

Instead, Locke just launched into a lengthy discussion of the unit price of natural gas and the potential factors that may drive natural gas prices up to the point where natural gas can’t beat the project he has already endorsed. Of course, without knowing the total amount of fuel needed or the relationship between units of natural gas compared to oil, Locke’s discussion is irrelevant.

And, of course, since his cost of Muskrat Falls electricity in the earlier slides (7.5 cents per KWH) omitted transportation costs, you wouldn’t necessarily have had a fair comparison across the board anyway.

Unexplored Alternatives

Unfortunately for the audience at Locke’s presentation, Locke’s colleague Jim Feehan didn’t get the time during the Question and Answer session to delve into some related issues that Locke skipped over. For example, Feehan noted that natural gas electricity is currently available in the United States for two to four cents per kilowatt hour.

If Nalcor could import that electricity through Nova Scotia for 10 cents per kilowatt hour, you would have a source of electricity in the long-term that would be competitive to Muskrat falls without the risk to the taxpayers locally. Feehan just didn’t have the time to get into that discussion.

Locke did note the low cost of natural gas in the US at the moment.

Offshore Gas

One slide.

That’s it.

The slide amounts to a series of excuses for ignoring natural gas.

Locke’s first two bullets contain the same arguments Nalcor used to justify the fact it did not study natural gas as an alternative to Muskrat. They aren’t any more convincing when Locke repeats them than they were when Nalcor pushed them out.

The SRBP favourite bullshit line:: “…there are no public plans to develop Grand Bank gas for use at Holyrood…”. Of course there aren’t. Nalcor is already committed to Muskrat. They aren’t going to study potentially cheaper alternatives when they have made their choice.

That doesn’t mean they got it right, though. One would have thought Locke would review this in greater detail in a presentation that purported to compare Muskrat to the alternatives. Instead, Locke just uses crap logic to justify his own analytical failing: essentially, his argument is that he didn’t study local natural gas because Nalcor isn’t going to build it because they want to build Muskrat Falls.

One bullet point was pure bullshit:

None of the currently available studies on natural gas can be used to definitely say that domestic natural gas is viable to use as a fuel source for producing electricity at Holyrood. …

No one said it was. They are starting points. Locke should have – at the very least – made an assessment of them, but as we know he just didn’t bother. This is the sort of thing one would expect from an advocate for Muskrat falls, not an analyst.

One bullet point is wrong, as it turns out:

There is not even a natural gas royalty in place at this time.

Your humble e-scribbler thought so as well. According to the natural resources department website, though, the province has a natural gas regime. The pdf file dates from April 2010. While the website claims there is a regime, it hasn’t be set down in regulations like the generic oil royalty regime.

Shale Gas

Locke spends three slides discussing shale gas. Rather than view it as a potential alternative, Locke considers it a threat to Muskrat Falls (Slide 40):

Maybe economic to produce at $4-6/MCF, and would constrain NL’s options

…

In the short term, lower natural gas prices, which will compete with hydroelectric imports and reduce the revenue potential from exported hydro electric projects such as Muskrat Falls and Gull Island. In fact, this will have implications for our ability to develop Gull for the export market (at least in the near term).

That’s a huge indication of the fundamental pro-Muskrat bias Locke brought to his presentation.

At no point did Locke assess Nalcor’s interest in shale gas on the west coast of Newfoundland or the potential availability of shale gas in the St. Lawrence basin as a source of feedstock or electricity. If Nalcor or a local private sector explorer finds shale gas in the province, we could have a ready supply of cheap, easily accessible fuel for a gas plant that is available in less than 10 years.

[Next: Debt and Locke’s conclusion]

- srbp -

Muskrat Falls and debt: some quick points #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-23T14:10:00.000-03:30

There are some big misconceptions out there as a result of the way people in government talk about debt. That has implications for any discussion of Muskrat Falls. Here are some quick comments, coming in part as a result of Tory MHA Paul Lane’s call to Open Line Monday morning.

The gross public debt in March 2010 (the most recent year for which we have audited figures) was $12.56 billion. It’s not likely to be significantly below that number today. That's the sum total of everything owed by the public either directly through the provincial government or indirectly through corporations like Nalcor.

Net debt. People like to toss around the term net debt. It’s an accounting term and basically represents all the liabilities less any cash or other assets on hand. If you follow that link from the 2010 auditor general’s report you will see the provincial government had about $4.0 billion in cash laying around.

One way to look at net debt is to think of it as what your debt would be if you had to shut down tomorrow. You could take the cash on hand and pay down your total liabilities by that amount. What’s left is what you’d have to deal with.

But here’s something to bear in mind. When you figure out what you have to pay every year to service the debt (principle and interest), you are working on the basis of what you owe.

What we owe is $12.5 billion or something pretty close to that, not $8.0 billion.

Muskrat Falls: No matter how you slice it, Muskrat will show up on the public accounts as part of the debt we all collectively owe through government.

To say it is stand alone or separate from everything, as Paul Lane did on Monday, is just misleading.

To say it’s no problem because that there will be money to cover it through electricity rates is also misleading.

The revenue for Muskrat Falls rates won’t be coming from Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario or anywhere else. Under the current plan, It will come entirely from Corner Brook, Quirpon and Carrick Drive.

If government and Nalcor have to borrow $5.0 billion to finance the project, then you can add that to the public debt. If there’s cash coming in to pay the annual costs, then it won’t be so much of a problem.

But it will still show up on the books as debt.

And the same people are liable for it either way.

Finance minister Tom Marshall told Open Line on Friday that he wants to list the generating plant and lines as assets so the provincial government’s net debt will remain the same.

He can take that up with his accountants. It doesn’t change what the taxpayers must pay off. And until the project starts bringing in money, the public debt will climb according to how much gets borrowed. The money for that annual debt servicing payment will have to come from somewhere, as well.

You can’t escape debt.

- srbp -

Related:

Locke and Muskrat Falls: some quick points (January 2012)
Debt, electricity rates and Muskrat Falls (August 2011)
Undisclosed risk: financing the Lower Churchill (January 2011)

Wading through Locke on Muskrat (Part 1) #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-23T07:30:00.000-03:30

An hour-long presentation, 48 slides and an interview with David Cochrane.

For all that, some apparent confusion lingers about what Memorial University economist Wade Locke included in his presentation and what he didn’t.

Let’s see if we can pick our way through the entire thing and assess Locke’s comments in detail.

The Topic

“Muskrat Falls: The Best Option?”. That was the title of the presentation on January 17.

The advance publicity included these questions, suggesting that the talk would cover the topics they mention.

“Is this the best option for meeting the province’s need for energy? Will we be paying too much to generate electricity? Are there other technologies which will provide lower cost energy and still meet the expected demand? Are the costs of the project, the estimated cost of oil and other important factors realistic? Will the province be burdened with unmanageable debt?”

The poster for the event contained fewer questions but the general sense remains of what the presentation would contain.

The Slides and the Video

In keeping with its usual practice, the Harris Centre broadcast the presentation via the Internet and made both the slides and the video available online the day after the session.

Locke also appeared on CBC’s On Point on Saturday.

What follows, as far as Locke’s comments are concerned, is all taken from those sources.

Locke and Muskrat Falls

Slide 2 is Locke’s outline for the presentation. His outline included these points:

Introduction
Why get involved?
How did NALCOR Derive the Price?
Island Load Forecast Production Mix
Can we price ourselves out?
C.D. Howe Study
Cost Comparison of Alternatives
Calculating the Supply Price
Oil and Gas Prices
Lower Fuel Cost – A Viable Alternative
Is Natural Gas an Alternative?
LNG
NL Electric Bills
Shale Gas
Debt Burden
Conclusion

Slide 3 is the Introduction. Locke notes that "he has been “on the record as supporting the Muskrat Falls Development as a good for the province” but that David Vardy’s assessment caused Locke “to look more closely at the issues.”

On slides 4 and 5 Locke deals with some of the public comments made online about him and his relationship to Nalcor and the provincial government. Locke states that he is “not under contract to NALCOR or the provincial government for anything pertaining to Muskrat Falls.” [Emphasis added]

On Slide 6, Locke gives the three questions that he believes needs to be answered. Even with the introduction, this suggests that Locke’s presentation will address these questions:

Do we need the power?
Can we avoid the need?
What is the least cost alternative?

Deriving the Price

Slides 7 and 8 describe the process by which Locke suggests that Nalcor derives what Locke terms as the “price associated with Muskrat Falls.” Locke doesn’t make clear what price he is referring to. He also doesn’t give any firm indication where he gets the information. The use of wording such as “would have” makes the whole thing appear highly speculative and uncertain.

The most significant comment in this pair of slides, though, is Locke’s reference that the cost of the project “is 100% equity financed (NL Gov.) and that the required rate of return would be 12%.” This appears to come from PUB Exhibit 15.

There are very few public comments about how Nalcor and the provincial government propose to structure the corporate ownership of the project. We’ll take a deeper look at this as we progress through the slides and in a future SRBP post on project financing.

The second most significant comment is this one:

Eight, this gives them a revenue flow that ignores initially the potential revenue from the residual energy and the Nova Scotia 20% commitment…”.

This confirms that the financial model for the entire project, including a guaranteed profit for an equity interest holders, is based entirely on the sale of power within Newfoundland and Labrador. There are no export sales at all.

Locke does hint at the potential for other sales in the last bullet on Slide 8. What he doesn’t do here or anywhere else is examine the potential export market, the cost implications of the proposed routing, or the physical capacity on the proposed line to Nova scotia that would limit the export potential of that line.

In other words, Locke holds out a prospect here of export sales without assessing – at any point – if this prospect is real or entirely theoretical. That’s a major shortcoming of his presentation.

The Need

Slide 9 is a graphical representation of the forecast demand on the island for 2010 to 2067.

This is not new information. You can find details in the joint environmental assessment panel documents and the public utilities board documents.

Locke’s comment on the bottom seems to be a defence of the people who made the forecast: “ I have no reason to believe that they are motivated by anything other than to do their job as best they
can.” Locke offers no assessment beyond stating that he thinks the forecast is “reasonable.” He does not explain why he thinks this or how he came to the conclusion.

Note, however, that except for the arrival of Long Harbour in about 2016 and two other years where annual growth is forecast to be above 1.0%, growth is consistently less than one percent.

Note as well, that demand isn;t forecast to exceed 10,000 gigawatt hours until about 2036, i.e. five years before the end of the 1969 Hydro-Quebec contract for Churchill Falls power.

This information appears to come from PUB Exhibit 16. This is a document Kathy Dunderdale has erroneously called a strategy. Exhibit 16 is a planning document. It describes the demand forecasts, generation capacity and planning assumption that Nalcor uses to manage the island electricity system using two scenarios.

Comparison of Total Production Mix; Isolated Island versus Infeed

In Slide 10, Locke presents what is essentially the stock Nalcor comparison. It matches PUB Exhibit 99. On the left, the generating requirement after 2036 is met by an increased thermal output from what appears to be a thermal generator replacement for Holyrood that burns Bunker C, like Holyrood.

Blow the slide up, if you need to and see if you can find any amount of wind energy. Essentially, there isn’t any beyond the modest amount already in place. In the “Infeed” scenario, wind appears to vanish as a power source.

“Infeed” means Muskrat Falls.

The Feehan Straw Man

Locke devotes six slides (Slides 11 to 16) to deal with the approach proposed by Memorial University economist Jim Feehan in a paper released on January 11, 2012. That’s about 14% off Locke’s presentation not including the title slide and the introduction and conclusion.

Locke misrepresents Feehan’s paper, particularly on slide 15 when he refers to jacking up prices by 80% above current levels. Feehan did not suggest price changes as a way of avoiding increased generation by wiping out the demand need.

Feehan suggested using a different pricing approach to induce a change in how demand grows. A change in the pricing approach would also reduce the difference between what it costs Nalcor to run Holyrood – when it does – and what Nalcor recovers from the current electricity rate on the island.

When Locke notes in red that on slide 13 that “It does not appear that NL is highly subsidized relative to other jurisdictions” there is no information in the presentation to back that up. Slides 13 and 14 only show the cost per kilowatt hour for electricity paid by consumers in Canada compared to an average. It does not give any information on the difference between what the electricity costs to produce and what consumers pay.

Slide 16 contains incorrect information. Locke claims that “In July 1, 2011, rates rose by 7% because fuel costs increased from $84/bbl to $103/bbl. That is, prices are going up anyway in the presence of higher oil prices.” Prices may move up and down based on several factors including oil prices and the amount of oil used by Nalcor to generate electricity. This is an important distinction.

Supply Price

This slide (17) is a bit of a head scratcher and Locke did not explain what all the lines meant. The slide excludes significant information and anyone reading this slide who wasn’t familiar with the issues could be easily mislead as a result. The “supply price” is the assumed cost of generating electricity at Muskrat Falls. The figure is given as a cost per megawatt hour.

Problem: this slide excludes transportation and other costs that would added to give a final cost to the consumer.

Locke did not indicate what “energy adj. [usted?] for inflation” means.

Slide 17 repeats the supply price information. It also omits crucial information to determine the cost per kilowatt hour for consumers. As such, the slide lowballs the costs and also gives a false comparison were someone to compare this cost to the ones presented on slides 13 and 14, for example.

This slide also contains the claim that:

The higher the required return, the higher the monthly electricity cost to the ratepayer and the larger will be the dividend to the shareholders and the better off are taxpayers (more expenditures, lower taxes or reduced public debt).

Nothing in the presentation deals with those concepts. Locke doesn’t give any clue as to where he got these ideas from.

Certainly, logic suggests that a higher rate of return would require a higher cost to the consumer. A higher rate of return does not necessarily mean that the dividend would be greater for the shareholders of the public and private sector companies involved in a project.

Another Unsubstantiated Claim

And on the last claim, Locke has absolutely no information to support his contention that taxpayers would be “better” off paying a higher profit margin and consequent higher unit price to companies in the public sector or private sector. Each of the three benefits Locke claims would flow are all matters to be decided by a future provincial government at a future time based on factors Locke doesn’t consider in this presentation or anywhere else.

[In Part 2, SRBP will start at Slide 20]

- srbp -

Muskrat Falls: The Kennedy Tweets #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-21T07:30:00.000-03:30

Here’s a string of tweets from natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy on Friday night:

Jerome Kennedy @jerome_kennedy

Let me try and simplify Muskrat Falls. First question, do we(NL) need the power? If yes, then question # 2,what are we going to do about it?

Jerome Kennedy @jerome_kennedy

MF cont'd. If we need the power what are our options: Muskrat Falls, refurbish Holyrood with small hydro and wind,Gull Island,or do nothing.

Jerome Kennedy @jerome_kennedy

MF cont'd. Gull island is not an option at present. To do nothing is not an option. So, do we do Muskrat Falls or refurbish Holyrood.

Jerome Kennedy @jerome_kennedy

MF cont'd. Nalcor argues that MF is $2.2B cheaper than Holyrood.Manitoba Hydro will examine this question and they are independent of govt.

Jerome Kennedy @jerome_kennedy

The cost of oil makes Holyrood so expensive. At peak it burns 18,000 barrels of oil per day. Experts tell us that oil will continue to rise

Jerome Kennedy @jerome_kennedy

Why the cost of oil will continue to rise-not enough supply to meet demand, activities in the Middle East and growth in China. Makes sense.

Jerome Kennedy @jerome_kennedy

MF cont'd. Cost of fixing up Holyrood is $600M. Forecasted cost of oil between 2017-36 is more that $7B.Hydro avoids the volatility of oil.

And then came this one:

Mark Watton @mark_watton

@jerome_kennedy You know, if the House were sitting, you could do this using more than 140 characters at a time.#nlpoli in reply to @jerome_kennedy

Followed by complete silence from the minister.

Interesting synopsis of the government argument, though. Interesting because of what it leaves out.

There’ll be more from SRBP in the days ahead.

- srbp -

More Tweets Update:

Jerome Kennedy @jerome_kennedy

MF cont'd(No.8) - Environmental benefits -Closing Holyrood is the equivalent of taking 300,000 cars off the road.Reduces GHGs by 1M tons/yr.

Jerome Kennedy @jerome_kennedy

MF cont'd(No.9) - Economic Benefits- peak employment of 2700.Job preference to Labradorians.Billions in income and taxes.Little talk of this.

And yet more tweets (Jan 22):

MF No.10 - Power rates continue to rise due to the price of oil. Critics argue that rates will double because of MF.This is simply not true.

MF No.11-The average ratepayer will pay $217 monthly in 2016,pre-Muskrat.This is projected to rise to $232 in 2017 when MF starts up (▲$15).

MF No.12-With Muskrat Falls the average user's rates are projected to go up from $232/mth to $246/mth between 2017-30. Rates will rise $14.

MF No.13-Without Muskrat rates are projected to go up $57 between 2017-30,as compared to $14 with Muskrat.MF will stabilze [sic] and reduce rates.

Old Harry review delayed at proponent request #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-20T15:15:00.000-03:30

From the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board [paragraphing changed for online readability]:

The C-NLOPB has received a request from Corridor Resources Inc. to issue a prohibition order under the Atlantic Accord legislation, which would prohibit Corridor Resources Inc., the interest owner in Exploration License 1105 (known as Old Harry) from commencing or continuing any work or activity on those portions of the offshore area subject to EL 1105 until the Board notifies the interest owner that the update of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Western Newfoundland Offshore Area has been completed.

Under the Atlantic Accord Act, a prohibition order can be made by the Board in the case of an environmental or social problem of a serious nature. A decision to make a prohibition order is a Fundamental Decision under the legislation and must therefore be ratified by both governments. If a prohibition order is made, the environmental assessment would be placed on hold and the term of the license would be suspended.

As a result of Corridor’s request for a prohibition order, the C-NLOPB is delaying the independent review of Corridor Resources' environmental assessment of the proposed exploration drilling program for License Area 1105 until such time as the C-NLOPB has fully considered the proponent’s request.

On December 22, 2011, the C-NLOPB filed the complete environmental assessment documents for Corridor Resources’ proposed drilling program in License Area 1105 with the Independent Reviewer, Mr. Bernard Richard. The Independent Reviewer was preparing to launch the public review process in mid-January.

The SEA for the Western Newfoundland Offshore Area was completed in 2005 and amended in 2007. The deadline for public comments on the draft scoping document for the SEA update was January 18, 2012.

“We need to fully consider the proponent’s request for a prohibition order before proceeding with public consultations on the environmental assessment,” said Max Ruelokke, Chair and CEO of the C-NLOPB. “We have therefore informed the Independent Reviewer, Mr. Bernard Richard, of the need to delay his plans to launch public consultations until this matter has been addressed by the Board.”

The environmental assessment documents for the project will remain on the C-NLOPB’s website for public access and review.

Media Contact:

Sean Kelly M.A., APR, FCPRS
Manager of Public Relations
(709) 778-1418
(709) 689-0713
skelly@cnlopb.nl.ca

- srbp -

Paying Attention 2: Muskrat Edition #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-20T11:15:00.000-03:30

You learn a lot when you pay attention to what people say.

Like natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy when he says that “it seems that they [the public utilities board] perhaps want to assume unto themselves a greater role than is contemplated by the terms of reference.”

The provincial government wanted the PUB to do a simple job: confirm that given this particular set up, Muskrat Falls is the right choice. The set-up was comparing Muskrat Falls to a situation in which Nalcor does nothing to change the existing energy supply on the island and oil prices run to double what they are and stay there.

In other words, compared to being totally irresponsible, is Muskrat Falls the lowest cost option?

The answer to that question is, not surprisingly, a resounding yes.

The problem is that if you look outside that one scenario, Muskrat Falls isn’t the answer. It could be part of the answer at some point 25 years from now, but it sure isn’t the lowest-cost way of meeting likely electricity needs before then.

The problem for Kennedy and the provincial government is that the PUB wanted to look at those other options. They did want to go beyond the set up the provincial government wanted.

But were they doing something wrong? Not if you think that the public utilities board should do their job as laid down in the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 even if, as in this case, they were neutered by exemptions issued to Nalcor (then NL Hydro) in 2000 by the Liberals and continued under the Tories.

The provincial government’s situation gets worse when you look at the question Jerome Kennedy and Kathy Dunderdale hold out as the “critical question” of the whole discussion:

Is Muskrat Falls the lowest cost option for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for electricity generation?

The answer to that is an unequivocal “no”. There are cheaper ways of meeting the need in the near term. A $300 million power line across the isthmus would let Nalcor bring stranded surplus power in central Newfoundland onto the whole island grid and replace Holyrood. Natural gas from the offshore is a potentially viable solution for the longer term that could be developed in time to meet the need a couple of decades and more from now.

Right now, those alternatives are possible ones, identified by a handful of observers. Having the PUB look at them, in detail, with expert opinion, would mean that those options go from theoretically viable ones to the kind of proven options that kill Muskrat falls in its tracks.

Nalcor doesn’t give a crap if that happens. They are engineers and economists and other professionals who just want to get on with the job of running an energy company.

Muskrat Falls isn’t their project. It’s one option among many. Odds are they’ve already run enough scenarios to understand that what the critics are saying is as close to correct as you can get.

Having the PUB study this project closely only causes a problem for politicians. After all, Muskrat Falls is a political option chosen for political reasons and nothing more. The politicians are firmly convinced they are right, they are sincere in their beliefs and none of them want to “lose”, as they would see it.

And if you pay attention to what politicians like Jerome Kennedy say, you can see all of that.

- srbp -

Paying attention #nlpoli

2012-01-20T09:00:00.000-03:30

In order to understand what is going on in the world around you, then you just need to pay attention.

Paul Wells makes plain the value of careful reading – i.e. paying attention – in a post at macleans.ca on the letter from the federal health minister to her counterparts in the provinces about health funding.

Go on.

Read the post.

The reward is what you’ll learn.

Wells does a simple dissection of an official statement by an important person. You can learn an awful lot by considering what words mean.

Too bad more of that doesn’t go on locally.

You can learn an awful lot by looking at what people say.

- srbp -

Muskrat Falls: Cum on feel the Noize #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-20T07:30:00.000-03:30

According to natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy, criticism of the government’s refusal to give the public utilities board the time it asked for to complete a review of Muskrat Falls is “political white noise by those who are adamantly opposed to the project and will never agree, no matter what.”

That’s a weird idea given that the most recent person to say the PUB should be given the time it needs is none other than Muskrat Falls lover Wade Locke.

You can tell the provincial government is under intense pressure when its chief salesman for the $6.2 billion megaproject has nothing but personal smears for anyone who speaks unkindly of anything related to the project.

Kennedy also said that critics of the project are now focusing on the PUB deadline because “they’re finding difficulty in criticizing the project.”

Denial is not just a river in Egypt,after all. Truth is that so far the project’s critics have been able to call every single aspect of the proposal into question, including the notion that it is the lowest cost option to meet the electricity needs in the province.

That’s likely why Kennedy and his colleagues want to stifle further detailed public discussion. As it turned out, though, their decision to cut short the PUB review has just undermined public confidence in the process, let alone the project.

Incidentally, two public opinion polls by NTV News found that support for Muskrat falls plummeted from 71% of respondents in February 2011 to 42% by October. That was before the most recent series of problems for the provincial government, including the pissing match with the PUB.

- srbp -

Kennedy slices into NDP’s Muskrat falls hypocrisy #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-19T16:00:00.000-03:30

Natural resources minister Jerome Kennedy belled the NDP cat on Wednesday for the provincial party’s flip-flop on Muskrat Falls. As the Telegram reported in its Thursday edition,

… Kennedy was particularly hard on criticism coming from the NDP, saying the current tone represents a break from deceased federal leader Jack Layton.

“The NDP has been making a lot of noise in the last little while, but it’s my understanding that Jack Layton supported the project,” Kennedy said. “Does the NDP still support the project? They’re not answering that.”

Jerome is right, of course.

And not only about Jack Layton’s support.

Bloc-NDP members of parliament Ryan Cleary and Jack Harris campaigned on a pro-Muskrat Falls ticket during last year’s federal election, as did provincial party leader Lorraine Michael who joined them on the campaign trail.

Enterprising news editors will no doubt be scrambling for shots of Lorraine cheering Jack’s visit here as she cheered Jack on and looking through Lorraine’s old news releases.

Lorraine supported the Lower Churchill project. Her only criticism at the time it was released is that the deal was not as big as the original promise.

But make no mistake: Lorraine backed Muskrat Falls.

However, she’s been shifting her position as public opposition to the project mounted. You could say she’s trying to pull an Aylward. Former Liberal leader Kevin Aylward shifted his potion almost 180 degrees on the project during the latter days of last fall’s provincial election.

Now Michael is trying to sound like she isn’t backing the plan to deliver cheap electricity to her New Democrat pals in Nova Scotia. Here’s how the Telegram quoted her from another Muskrat story from Thursday’s paper:

NDP Leader Lorraine Michael said she’s open to being convinced that going ahead with the project is a good idea. Nothing Locke said moved her, though.

She said she’s hoping to see independent, in-depth examination of alternatives to Muskrat Falls before the project gets sanctioned.

“If there was an in-depth analysis that was done on an alternative like the wind power — an in-depth analysis — then I’d like to see it,” she said. “My understanding is that no in-depth analysis has been presented.”

The spring session of the legislature should be interesting if only for the political cat-fighting among members of three political parties all of which support Muskrat Falls to one degree or another.

The Liberals back the project as well. Their only objection, as described by natural resources critic Yvonne Jones is that there is no guarantee any power will go to Labrador.

Power could go there, of course, but Jones apparently wants some other guarantee. her objections are best described as superficial or trivial. She’ll fold up and back the thing when it comes down to it.

But a crushing public debt?

The enormous cost piled on the backs of ordinary people of this province while others get a free ride?

Not a worry for Jones and the Liberals apparently.

Kennedy will have an easy time of it in the House lined up against the likes of the NDP and the Liberals.

- srbp -

Locke admits assessment was “probably not” fair #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-19T14:00:00.000-03:30

In an interview with the Telegram that appeared in Thursday’s edition, Memorial University economist Wade Locke admitted that his assessment of Muskrat Falls probably offered an unfair comparison with alternatives.

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 impact of Locke’s omission was to hide almost 50% of the estimated cost per kilowatt hour for the project. As SRBP noted on Wednesday, that rendered his comparisons useless.

It also meant his conclusion – that Muskrat Falls was the cheapest solution – had nothing to support it. “Unfounded” would be the polite word for it.

No word on whether Locke will get a do-over.

No word either on whether or not the Western Star editorial team will retract their Thursday editorial in light of Locke’s admission.

Under a headline “A trusted opinion”, the crowd on the west coast called Locke’s voice “independent and dependable”. The editorial said that Locke’s opinion “will almost certainly carry more weight than many other opinions.”

D’oh!

- srbp -

Rumpole and the New Math

2012-01-19T07:30:00.000-03:30

The voice rasped down the phone line even before the receiver hit my ear.

“On the Upper Path these days,” the familiar voice solemnly declared, “four plus four is five and a half.”

“What?” your humble e-scribbler asked, figuring this must be the latest bit of gossip on the illegal drug trade or prostitution in Sin Jawns.

“On Duckworth Street, stunned arse. You know where that is, do you?”

He repeated himself slowly and carefully as if his audience was deaf or feeble minded or both.

“Four and four is five and a half.”

“What in the name of God are you talking about?”

“I’ll make it easier for you. Test your numeracy skills, then. You’re always going on about that.”

A sip of coffee and a pause was enough of a reply in whatever game he was at today.

“What is two times four?” he said, sounding for all the world like a school boy who had discovered his first play on words.

Another slurp and more silence. Experience teaches that it is best just to let him ramble when he is in one of these moods. He knows you are listening and just needs to act out the little drama.

“What is four plus four?”

“Eight” went the reply, with only a hint of boredom.

“See,” says the familiar voice, “that’s why you will never be a justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. No matter how hard you try, no matter what political arse you kiss, no matter how proper you are or how many times you stand up for truth, justice and fair play, you cannot ever get to sit with those learned men and women of the highest court in this land.”

“You,” he said, pausing on each word, “do not know the New Math.”

The voice then summarised a recent decision from the Supreme Court’s Appeals Division of an appeal of the sentences in an armed robbery trial.

A young fellow turned up last year appealing the sentence in a robbery case. He’d pleaded guilty to two sets of offenses committed six days apart.

In the first robbery, the young fellow and another man went into a convenience store in town with handkerchiefs on their faces and knives in hand. They tried to rob a customer and when that didn’t work they made off with cigarettes and lottery tickets.

The young fellow who showed up in appeals court “pleaded guilty to robbery with respect to the theft of the cash, cigarettes and tickets (s. 343(d) of the Criminal Code), attempted robbery of the customer with intent to steal her purse (s. 463(a) of the Code), wearing a mask with intent to commit an indictable offence (s. 351(2) of the Code) and breach of an existing probation order (s. 733.1(1)(a) of the Code). He was sentenced as follows for these offences:

Robbery (Count No. 7) 4 years

Attempted robbery (Count No. 9) 3 years, concurrent

Wearing face mask (Count No. 8) 1 year, concurrent

Breach of probation (Count No. 10) 1 day, consecutive”

In the second incident, the same young fellow “demanded and received $115 in cash, as well as some cigarettes. He then fled the store. He pleaded guilty to one count each of robbery, wearing a face mask and breach of probation. For these offences he was sentenced as follows:

Robbery (Count No. 1) 3 years (less 141 days pre-trial custody), consecutive to the robbery sentence for the Hamilton robbery

Wearing Face mask (Count No. 2) 1 year, concurrent

Breach of Probation (Count No. 3) 1 day, consecutive”

The quotes are from the appeals court decision issued on January 12. As the decision puts it, the “net effect of the sentencing was that the appellant was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of seven years (less 141 days) plus two additional days (for the breaches of probation).” There was a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order but those two didn’t factor into the appeal.

The young man and his lawyer thought that the judge didn’t get the totals right when he sorted out consecutive and concurrent sentences for all the offences.

After a lengthy explanation, the appeals court noted that the trial judge had followed the law in pretty well everything except the notion of “totality”. That is, he not only looked at the individual sentences for the individual crimes, he also had to look at the amount of time it all added up to.

At this point, it is just as well to let the Chief Justice’s words speak for themselves:

(vi) A Fit Sentence

[95] No issue was taken with the one year sentences for wearing a face mask or the three years for the attempted robbery. I do not propose to say anything further about them.

[96] Counsel for the appellant did not dispute the proposition that sentences of four years and three years for the Hamilton and Blackmarsh Robberies, respectively, were fit. Counsel for the Crown, although stating that he had “no issue” with those sentences, submitted that four years for each would be more appropriate.

[97] I agree that, in the circumstances of this case, parity requires a four year sentence to be imposed for the Hamilton Robbery because that was the sentence meted out to Mr. Hutchings’ co-robber. The sentence for that robbery can also be considered as a benchmark for the other. There is little to differentiate between them except that a customer was also involved in the Hamilton Robbery and there were two robbers. Both were convenience stores, the modus operandi was the same, only a small amount of money or merchandise was taken and the events took place at night. Mr. Hutchings must bear more responsibility for the Blackmarsh Robbery because he acted alone. It was also his second robbery in a very short time. These factors countervail to some extent for the fact that the Hamilton Robbery involved both a customer and a store employee. Given the sentencing judge’s identification of the prevalence of armed robberies in the community and that there is a need to protect people working in or using convenience stores late at night, a fit sentence for the second robbery should be four years.

[98] While this sentence is somewhat higher than the levels of sentence imposed in other comparable cases in this jurisdiction (See R. v. Sheppard (1997) 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304 (Nfld.C.A.) (no criminal record; one robbery with mask; severe gambling problem; four years reduced to three on appeal); R. v. Butt (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 89 (Nfld.C.A.) (armed robbery of gas bar; four years reduced to two years less a day because of psychiatric illness); R. v. Pardy (1994), 126 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 218 (Nfld.SCTD) (one robbery of service station, masked; prior convictions; three years); R. v. Power (2006), 262 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 30 (NLSCTD) (robbery of restaurant; psychiatric disorders; joint submission of three years accepted), it is nevertheless justified given the present community problems with this type of offence, and the concern for the safety of vulnerable workers, as identified by the sentencing judge.

[99] As far as the sentences for breach of probation are concerned, a sentence of one day, as imposed by the sentencing judge is inappropriate. Sentences can range between one month and sometimes less to upwards of six months. See Murphy (six months); Oxford (three months). In Oxford, the Court accepted statements in prior cases that sentences for non-compliance with probation orders could be one month or less even where there are prior convictions.

[100] In the current case, Mr. Hutchings has several convictions for failure to comply with court orders. In light of the requirements of specific and general deterrence, I am satisfied in the circumstances that sentences of two months for each offence are necessary to achieve respect for the observance of court orders.

[101] I have already indicated that I agree that the two robberies should be considered separate criminal adventures and that the sentences, other things being equal, should be served consecutively. The robbery and attempted robbery at the Hamilton convenience store were part of the same criminal adventure and the sentences are appropriately made concurrent with each other. It is also appropriate to make the sentences for having the face masked concurrent with the respective robbery sentences, as they were part of and arose out of the robbery events. Sentences for breaches of court orders are generally an exception to the normal rules respecting consecutive and concurrent sentences. They should normally be made consecutive. I see no reason to depart from that approach here.

[102] Accordingly, before considering totality, the overall sentence would be eight years for the two robberies plus four months for the two breaches of probation orders for a total of eight years, four months.

[103] It is now necessary to consider totality, the application of which is engaged because some sentences are consecutive to each other.

[104] The most serious offences here are the robberies. The normal level of sentence for armed robberies of convenience stores-gas bars by a young person, masked, late at night where the money or merchandise taken is relatively small could range from three to five years. When compared with the total sentence of eight years four months that would otherwise be indicated, this would be a factor calling for a reduction in the overall sentence.

[105] There were two offence events. While not a rash of robberies, neither was it a single isolated incident. The two events occurred within a short period of time. Although the gravity of these offences can be regarded as not as serious as, say, large scale robberies where violence is actually perpetrated, they are nevertheless of great concern. Weapons were involved, Mr. Hutchings was masked and the offences were carried out at night when the victims were more vulnerable. The total sentence must reflect these factors.

[106] Mr. Hutchings has a lengthy prior criminal record spanning from late 2006 to mid-2009, involving a total of 26 offences, eleven of which were convictions for failure to comply with a previous undertaking, recognizance or probation order. Of the remaining 15 offences, nine were committed as a young offender and two as an adult. The sentencing for these offences occurred in four clusters as a youth and once as an adult. The sentence for the adult offences was 30 days intermittent plus 2 years probation for 2 counts of theft under $5,000 and 2 counts of failure to comply with a prior court order. The most concerning sentence as a young offender involved a conviction for armed robbery in 2006, where Mr. Hutchings was sentenced to 9 ½ months involving a combination of secure and open custody plus an additional 159 days supervision order and 12 months probation. This is a significant sentence in the context of a young offender where the emphasis is on rehabilitation. With that exception, none of the other youth sentences involved any significant amount of custodial time. The sentence for the current offences will be Mr. Hutchings’ first substantial period of imprisonment as an adult. The committing of the current offences does indicate, however, as the sentencing judge noted, that Mr. Hutchings “has not gotten the message” from the sentences imposed for his prior offences. That said, even though the sheer number of prior offences is a matter of considerable concern, a sentence of eight years, four months is a substantial movement from a thirty day intermittent sentence which was the longest period of jail time he had previously received as an adult, or even from 9 ½ months, which was the longest period of custody he had previously received as a young offender.

[107] Mr. Hutchings’ young age has to be considered in relation to his prospects for rehabilitation. Notwithstanding the absence of a pre-sentence report, the fact of his age should be taken into account insofar as his behaviour may be at least partially attributable to immaturity. While eight years, four months might not be considered a “crushing” sentence, it certainly will take away from him a substantial portion of his twenties which are important to a young man who is still maturing and developing those things, like job prospects and relationships, that provide the base for a productive life. This factor also points toward modifying the total sentence.

[108] Mr. Hutchings suffers, as noted by the sentencing judge, from a drug problem, a circumstance that often fuels the type of behavior for which he was sentenced. Some of the cases cited previously (e.g. Sheppard, Butt, Power) recognize addictions, such as gambling and alcohol dependency, or emotional or psychiatric illness as factors that may mitigate the severity of a sentencing disposition.

[109] Other appellate decisions recognize that it may be appropriate to reduce an overall sentence when an offender is being sentenced for multiple robberies committed in close succession. (See Wozny).

[110] Taking all these factors into consideration, and noting that a number of them point toward a reduction in overall sentence, I am satisfied that a sentence of eight years, four months is unduly long or harsh when measured against the gravity of the offences and the offender’s degree of responsibility. While recognizing the serious nature of this type of offence and that a considerable term of imprisonment is nevertheless warranted, a more appropriate overall sentence that will still recognize the inherent gravity of the offences would be five years, six months.

[111] To achieve this result, I would impose sentences as follows:

For the Hamilton Robbery:

Robbery 4 years

Attempted robbery 3 years, concurrent

Wearing a mask 1 year, concurrent

Breach of probation 2 months, concurrent [changed, for totality, from consecutive to concurrent]

For the Blackmarsh Robbery:

Robbery 1 year, 6 months consecutive [reduced, for totality, from an otherwise appropriate sentence of 4 years] (less 141 days pre-trial custody),

Wearing a mask 1 year, concurrent

Breach of probation 2 months, concurrent [changed, for totality, from consecutive to concurrent]

Summary and Disposition

[112]I would vary the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge as follows: for Count No. 1 on the Information to one year, six months (less 141 days pre-trial custody); Count No. 2 to one year concurrent; Count No. 3 to two months concurrent; Count No. 7 to four years consecutive; Count No. 8 to one year concurrent; Count No. 9 to three years concurrent; and Count No. 10 to two months concurrent.

“And that,” the voice chuckled down the phone line, “is how four and four gets you five and a half.

Next time, I’ll tell you how seven times 13 is 28.”

- srbp -

Locke and Muskrat Falls: some quick points #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-18T07:30:00.000-03:30

Memorial University economist Wade Locke delivered a presentation on Tuesday night about Muskrat Falls, a project he had already endorsed publicly.

The Harris Centre at Memorial University, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and the MUN economics department’s Applied Economics Research Initiative sponsored the talk.

The pdf of Locke’s slides should be available from the Harris Centre website along with the video of the presentation plus the question and answer session that followed.

You can tell the topic is hot for two reasons.

First, they packed the main hall plus a couple of fair-sized rooms in which people could watch via the Internet.

Second, Locke started out his talk with a pre-emptive declaration that he was doing the talk on his own, that he wasn’t sponsored by anybody, under contract to anybody and that he valued his professional reputation above all else. Locke insisted he believed everything he was saying, which should be pretty much a given.

Here are some quick observations:

You will pay for it all, plus profit. Right up front, Locke pointed out the most obvious thing of all, namely that taxpayers in this province will pay for the entire project, plus a rate of return of as much as 12%. Now Locke never said it straight out. In fact, Locke never made it plain at any point during his talk who actually was paying the bill.

But it was there, just as your humble e-scribbler noted in October 2010. That’s not clairvoyance. That’s just what comes from research.

Toward the end of his presentation, Locke blew off any concern about the debt since that would all be recovered from the rates, no matter what.

Wade just never noted that the people in the room would be covering the entire shot.

Plus profit.

When an online question asked about Nova Scotians getting the electricity cheaper than the people who own the dam, Locke blew it off as an irrelevant consideration from an economic standpoint.

Situating the Estimate. That’s what they call it in staff college. You present the information that fits your pre-conceived solution.

And having already endorsed Muskrat Falls, presumably before he really knew anything about it, Locke basically recited the reasons why his initial conclusion was right and everyone else is wrong.

Locke started by torquing his description of the cost of the project. A mere 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour. As Jim Feehan pointed out in the Q and A, Locke had lowballed the number. The cost of delivered Muskrat electricity would be 14.3 cents per kilowatt hour based on current estimates.

At least.

And that of course made all Locke’s subsequent comparisons useless.

They were useless because they effectively compared a misleading – bordering on the false – Muskrat cost to a cost for some alternatives.

Once you realise that Locke torqued the cost, you’d have to be suspicious of the basis on which he presented the costs of other projects.

Did he highball them?

Maybe.

Problem is we don’t know. People would have a right to be suspicious because Locke didn’t make it clear how he got either his Muskrat figures or his other cost figures for projects he contended were more costly.
Locke blew his own credibility, at least among people who actually knew what he had done. Expect to hear more about that in the days ahead as word spreads.

Burn, Straw Man, Burn. Early on the presentation, Locke savaged colleague Jim Feehan with a caricatured presentation of Feehan’s paper for the C.D. Howe Institute. Locke presented Feehan’s argument [as] though Feehan believed government could use pricing to wipe out demand such that Muskrat wouldn’t be necessary.*

Feehan didn’t say anything close to that.

Locke even trotted out the melodramatic – and ultimately childish - line Ed Martin tried on about old people in the winter.

Feehan sorted Locke out at the end but Locke’s comments about Feehan were insulting to Feehan professionally and to the audience’s intelligence. For a guy who defensively moaned about his own professional reputation at the front end of the talk, Locke had no trouble tearing into a colleague based on what was utter crap.

Controlling the Escalation. As much as Locke got weepy over old people and high electricity prices and for all his teary comments about the impact of policy ideas on real people, Wade didn’t give a toss about Muskrat Falls and the impact its high prices would have on the same people he supposedly wanted to defend.

Locke referred to Muskrat Falls as giving government the ability to control price escalation. The alternative – a completely false one – was to be at the mercy of fluctuating oil prices.

Muskrat Falls will take care of the potential hike in electricity because of oil prices by guaranteeing the prices will shoot up regardless of what oil does. And if oil goes down in price, local consumers will be stuck paying for Muskrat.

Former PUB consumer advocate Dennis Browne noted during the Q and A that Locke’s assumption of escalating electricity prices due to oil was false. Electricity prices don’t jump up every year, like clockwork, and they sure don’t jump every time oil prices go up.

Locke didn’t really answer Browne’s point.

Humour High Point: Moderating the Q and A, Harris Centre director Dr. Rob Greenwood said that the Harris Centre was a spin free zone. Evidently, Locke’s presentation - after the price bullshit alone – wasn’t covered by the anti-spin rule or Rob didn’t pick up on the heavily torqued comments by the presenter. Either way it was about the funniest thing that happened during the evening.

What debt problem? There isn’t one according to Locke. He flashed a slide that showed annual costs Nalcor would pay for given amounts based on certain interest rates.

Worst case scenario, as your humble e-scribbler would put it: the gross public debt would show up as close to $20 billion (the current $12 billion-ish plus an additional eight billion in borrowing from Locke’s slide).

That would add annual debt servicing costs of $800 million for Nalcor.

That would show up on the annual public accounts, incidentally.

The debt would be funded, of course, because local ratepayers would be forced to pay the full amount need to pay the loans plus deliver a guaranteed profit. But…

Locke didn’t do any calculation of the wider implication of any of that. He just said any added debt would be no problem since there’d be revenue to cover it.

Yep.

All those old people on fixed incomes would be paying the guaranteed high prices Locke ranted against at one point and ignored at another.

What the Harris Centre should do next: Locke’s presentation was weak. All his pre-emptive apologies at the front end couldn’t cover over the flaws.

Locke’s analysis was far from complete and he torqued too many details for it to meet the standards people should be getting on such an important subject from the Harris Centre.

Aside from apologising to Jim Feehan for Locke’s remarks, the Harris Centre should organize a series of talks on Muskrat Falls. The public would definitely profit from a better presentation on behalf of the project proponents as well as a fair presentation of arguments by Feehan and David Vardy.

40 slides too many: Opponents of Muskrat Falls can explain in a few minutes why they have doubts about the project.

Simple.

Clean.

Factual.

Give a knowledgeable supporter of the current administration and Nalcor, one hour of uninterrupted time, 48 slides densely packed with verbiage, and an attentive audience and he still can’t explain why Muskrat Falls makes sense.

That should tell you all you need to know.

- srbp -

* [word in square brackets added to earlier version for clarity]

If this is bad… #nlpoli

2012-01-17T11:00:00.000-03:30

Bloc NDP member of parliament Ryan Cleary thinks that Marine Atlantic’s 4.5% fare increase will put the province at a disadvantage when it comes to tourism and economic development.

Cleary is also concerned about the impact on ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians:

“Living in Newfoundland and Labrador is not cheap. This fare increase will eventually further increase the cost of goods in our province — including food, which is already far more expensive than in other parts of the country,” Cleary said.

So if Marine Atlantic’s rate increase is so bad, according to Cleary, why is he so enthusiastic about driving up electricity rates in Newfoundland and Labrador by 45% or more and selling discount electricity to people in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in North America.

- srbp -

Sucking eggs, debating Muskrat Falls and other wastes of time #nlpoli

2012-01-17T07:30:00.000-03:30

Former natural resources minister Shawn Skinner thinks there House of Assembly should debate the Muskrat Falls deal.

Ditto his replacement, Jerome! Kennedy who likes to quote a supposed 1980 endorsement of the project by former Hydro boss Vic Young as proof there’s been enough talk about the whole thing.

Ditto the province’s New Democrats, who thing there should be a “special” debate.

The Liberals will likely go along with the idea, as well so that puts them all in agreement.

Debate implies a disagreement, though. To have a debate, you would have to find people in the House of Assembly who are fundamentally opposed to Muskrat Falls.

Otherwise it would be like the Abitibi expropriation debate where everybody spoke in favour of the seizure bill and never voiced any concern for it, at all.

Find one member of the House of Assembly who is actually, unquestionably, unequivocally opposed to the Muskrat Falls project.

Find one.

Until you can, there’s no point in talking about a “debate” in the provincial legislature.

It’s just a waste of time.

- srbp -

Epic Fail Snail Mail

2012-01-16T14:15:00.000-03:30

If you wanted to promote something that was better than ever, especially high definition television, you certainly wouldn’t like to use a piece of snail mail that wound up in your humble e-scribbler’s snail mailbox looking like this:

The ultimate HD experience does not mean heavy water damage and tattered edges all the way around.

Amazing.

- srbp -

Rebirth for one, and for the other? #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-16T07:30:00.000-03:30

The federal Liberal convention this weekend shows just exactly how out to lunch the overwrought media commentary about the devastated Liberal party has been.

Around 3,000 delegates. Some said there were more than that; others said there were fewer.

Lots of interested and interesting discussion.

And a new president.

Keeping party membership is a good thing. One of the reasons political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador are in an abysmal state is the absence of a working membership system in any of them. Basically a party without membership becomes easy prey for the backroom types who thrive on secrecy. They can manipulate the whole thing, one way or another and they do.

Memberless parties also create a world in which voters have no particular attachment to the party and its principles. Again, the parties in Newfoundland and Labrador are classic examples of this sort of thing. Voters shift back and forth among the parties with ease largely because there is nothing to distinguish one from the other.

The elected types are no different. They all – basically – support exactly the same sorts of things. If it is popular, they will back it. That’s one of the big reasons why the NDP and Liberals have been basically just red and orange chapters of the Danny Fan Club since 2006 or so.

They haven’t opposed anything, except for show.

They still don’t.

So while the federal Liberals are already well on the way to change, the provincial Liberals are, well, not.

Talk of their demise is anything but exaggerated.

- srbp -

Dan-O-Matic Translator still works #nlpoli

2012-01-15T10:30:00.000-03:30

If David Vardy was wrong about Muskrat Falls or about the concern some people have about publicly criticising Tory pet projects, Danny Williams wouldn’t be attacking Vardy personally.

- srbp -

Muskrat Falls, the kamikaze venture #nlpoli

2012-01-14T07:30:00.000-03:30

Not surprisingly Nalcor’s Ed Martin latched onto a pretty superficial argument to dismiss economist Jim Feehan’s critique of Muskrat Falls.

"I go over to see my Dad, an 80-year-old gentleman living on his own, and I say to Dad, 'I have a solution for you — why don't we raise your electricity rates so high that you won't use electricity?' ... He's going to say to me, 'I think you're going to have to find another solution here.' "

Premier Kathy Dunderdale wasn’t far behind. As VOCM put it:

Dunderdale says Feehan's argument that electricity rates are artificially low and that people will use less electricity if the prices were increased, is something government simply does not agree with. She says their primary focus is to keep electricity rates low.

Dunderdale never explained why she thought prices weren’t artificially low. Odds are she doesn’t know whether they are or they aren’t low or what impact changing the way energy is priced might have.

Like most politicians, she is probably contented with the rather simplistic view that created the current system. Low prices are politically good. “[T]ry selling that,” writes the Telegram editorialist on Friday, “to a pensioner on a fixed income.”

Such a discussion on the doorstep is a scary prospect, to be sure, even if you understand all the nuances of the issue. In Dunderdale’s case, though, it isn’t a question of understanding anything except that this deal is done.

Period.

When Danny announced it, nothing could stop it.

There are no more decision gates.

There are no off-ramps and no climb down spots.

Once Danny announced this project and cabinet backed it in November 2010, they put us all on a non-stop march to debt.

The Tories are impervious to logic.

None can penetrate.

They cannot be dissuaded.

CBC cornered Danny Williams somewhere on Friday and asked him about the critics. Williams said that when he put this deal together, Williams got the top minds to work it out. This deal must be perfect one can take from that. And since Williams had only the best, all others must be inferior creatures. The decision is already perfect.

Such is the delusional world, the blind world, the supremely arrogant world in which he and his heirs live.

So far removed are Williams, Dunderdale, Jerome Kennedy, Shawn Skinner and the rest of the Muskrat mafia from reality that they cannot see the pure insanity of the claim that their primary focus, as Dunderdale put it, is keeping energy prices low.

Feehan’s paper, as the Telegram editorial quoted, uses figures that translate out to an increase in electricity prices from 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour to 13.5 cents per kwh, all without Muskrat. he was talking about the price consumers pay.

Even if we accept the wildly unrealistic assumptions Dunderdale and company are using for Muskrat Falls, their own numbers show that the cost of making electricity at Muskrat Falls will be at least 14.3 cents per kwh and as much as 16.5 cents.

That isn’t the price consumers will pay. They will have to pay for Muskrat Falls, plus all of Nalcor’s other operations, plus newfoundland Power’s costs of distribution and a healthy profit to both.

If those Nalcor assumptions about project costs – a mere 15% over-run, for example – turn out to be as ludicrous as experience suggests they are, then you can be damn certain that consumers will be paying way more than 16.5 cents per kwh just for Muskrat Falls.

If Ed Martin explained his Muskrat Falls plan to his father and then laid Jim Feehan’s idea in front of him, you can bet which one Martin Senior would jump at.

The logic isn’t hard to follow.

The math is actually pretty easy.

If Ed were to add that the Williams/Dunderdale/Martin idea was to trade away possible high electricity prices for guaranteed high ones, then Ed’s Dad would probably keel over.

Williams, Dunderdale and Company want to make sure that domestic electricity prices in Newfoundland and Labrador are the highest, not the lowest. That’s what their own information says.

It’s like Tom Marshall’s claim that he wants to fight the public debt. And his way of doing that is - in effect – to double the debt by building Muskrat Falls. That’s the only conclusion you can reach from their own information.

Its proponents would have you believe that Muskrat Falls is the divine wind that will save us all. The reality is that the project looks like a kamikaze of a different sort altogether.

- srbp -

Related:

Hold off on the Lower Churchill, James Feehan, National Post, (January 2012):

“Apparently, the province is unconcerned that pushing ahead, as opposed to waiting for a more comprehensive report, might hurt the credibility of the PUB assessment itself. Now, doubts about the project have company: doubts about the process.

The way forward is clear: At the very least, Newfoundland and Labrador should hold off on the Lower Churchill until a better set of facts is in front of the public, and the legislature. And the province would do well to take the time to ponder a broader set of options, including setting better energy policy. Muskrat Falls will wait, and a wider set of long-run options, including a transmission corridor that better serves provincial and pan-Canadian needs, will present themselves in due course.”

Williams announces political exit plan (October 2010):

“It gets better. Weak electricity prices coupled with the front-end loading of capital on Muskrat Falls would likely mean power sent to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the United States could only sell at heavily discounted prices. Even Muskrat Falls power at a break even price would likely be too expensive for the markets to bear. That’s an old and fundamental problem with trying to sell Labrador power so far away from Labrador.

No problem for NALCOR, these days. Thanks to changes made to the Electrical Power Control Act in 2006, the Hydro Corporation Act, the Public Utilities Act, and government policy, NALCOR wouldn’t suffer any losses. The company can export all the discounted power it wants knowing that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will wind up paying for it.”

Debt, electricity rates and Muskrat Falls (August 2011)

Muskrat falls deal will succeed: Nalcor boss (December 2011)

Beleaguered utility blows raspberry at regulator #nlpoli

2012-01-13T07:30:00.000-03:30

Nalcor should be able to supply information to any regulatory or review process for the Muskrat Falls project because the company should have already reviewed exactly the sorts of information those regulators or reviewers in order to approve its project for development.

The fact that Nalcor hasn’t been able to meet a single deadline, especially for the public utilities board process speaks volumes about Nalcor’s fundamental problems.

The public utilities board process, don’t forget, is one in which Nalcor and the provincial government have constrained the PUB scope of inquiry and time scales/

Still Nalcor is frigging it up.

So what does a company do with a project more and more people are questioning across the board?

They send a letter to the public utilities board chairman that, in effect, blows a raspberry at the regulator.

To paraphrase: we’ve given you pages of stuff and met your people lots of times despite the fact we are really, really busy doing other stuff. So there.

What doesn’t sound good, though is this line in the last paragraph:

Nalcor wants to ensure that the process and final Board report is both balanced and a fair representation of the information presented.

So Nalcor chief executive Ed martin is now setting up a pre-emptive defense in case the utilities board review dumps on Nalcor.

Nalcor’s management of the Muskrat Falls project just keeps getting worse.

And that only serves to further undermine confidence in the company.

- srbp -

Cheaper Muskrat Alternative: Part Whatever Gigantic Number we are at now #nlpoli

2012-01-12T19:00:00.000-03:30

Hydro-Quebec just signed a deal to purchase 150 megawatts of electricity produced by biomass.

“The price for the power, in 2012 dollars, will be 10.6 cents per kilowatt hour, the average price for power awarded in 2009 to successful bidders on a biomass power program set to supply the hydro grid in 2012,” the [Montreal Gazette] paper reported.

- srbp -

The limits of myth busting #nlpoli

2012-01-12T11:00:00.000-03:30

Coming to The Rooms in February:

Wednesday, February 22, 7 pm
The Limits of Myth Busting:
Popular and Professional Histories of Newfoundland and Labrador

What is the relationship between myth and history? And are myths rooted in history? Join Dr. Jerry Bannister as he shares his thoughts on the role of historians and popular mythologies in understanding our province’s past.

Mark your calendars.

This one should be as good as the last one.

- srbp -

Muskrat Falls: from worse to worser for Dunderdale and Company #nlpoli

2012-01-12T08:15:00.000-03:30

Add Ron Penney to the list of former senior provincial public servants questioning Muskrat Falls and/or the way the provincial government is handling the project.

In a letter to the Telegram, the former Peckford-era [deputy] justice minister joins with David Vardy to call for a full, independent review of the MF proposal through the public utilities board. Vardy, a former Clerk of the Executive Council, and Penney, one of the team that negotiated the 1985 Atlantic Accord, say that they have followed the discussion and that given the serious of the issue “fully expected” that the public utilities board would get the time needed to complete its review properly.

We were therefore not surprised by the recent request by the board to have the deadline extended for the completion of the reference until June 30 and fully expected Minister Jerome Kennedy to provide the extension.

We were shocked by the immediate decision of the minister to deny the request. The stated reason is to allow a debate in the House of Assembly in March but there is no reason why the House cannot debate this in July, following the completion of the reference.

Penney and Vardy call Muskrat Falls the largest public works project ever undertaken in the province and “the most important public policy issue ever to have faced Newfoundland and Labrador”.

It requires careful and comprehensive independent analysis and a public debate, informed by that analysis. That is the purpose of the reference to the board and to restrict that review does a disservice to the people of the province.

They say that the project may “expose us [i.e. the people of the province] to significant risk”. They are absolutely right and most of that risk, don’t forget is undisclosed.

Vardy and Penney draw attention to points that will be very familiar to SRBP readers:

Major infrastructure projects like this inevitably cost considerably more than originally estimated so we might well double the debt of the province at a time when it is likely that offshore revenues are in decline and our expenditures are increasing to meet the challenges posed by our changing demographics.

The solution, they argue, is to let the PUB assess all potential options.

The board should be allowed to consider the other issues that have been raised publicly over the past year such as the use of natural gas as feedstock for the Holyrood thermal plant, incentives to reduce demand during the winter peak, conservation measures, and estimates of future population and electrical load growth, among others. Furthermore, we maintain that these issues are legitimate questions within the review of the isolated island alternative to Muskrat Falls, even though we believe that the board should be unfettered in its mandate.

-srbp -

‘eavy ‘angs the ‘ead #nlpoli

2012-01-12T07:30:00.000-03:30

Natural resources minister Jerome! Kennedy is wading deeper and deeper into the political morass called the Muskrat Falls project these days and finding that it is a sticky, stinky, mess.

For not one, but two days running, Jerome has been trying to explain to VOCM’s afternoon radio call-in host why Jerome and the Nalcor gang are right and everybody else is wrong.

On Wednesday, Jerome talked about a bunch of charts and tables he must have sent over to the host. They both talked about what the tables showed: how prices for electricity will be this if Muskrat goes ahead and will be that if it doesn’t.

“Will” as in “guaranteed to be.”

Only problem for Jerome! is that his numbers aren’t guaranteed anything at all. They are speculation. They are based on assumptions. – at best – highly speculative.

The price might be this.

Or it might be something else entirely.

It all depends on what assumptions you make.

Take, for example, two of the key assumptions.

For Muskrat Falls to make any sense at all, crude oil must go to at least $200 a barrel and stay there. Anything less than that and taxpayers are better off not building Muskrat.

Second, Muskrat must also cost the projected price or less. Odds of that happening are very small. Jerome! insists that Nalcor has that one covered. They have included in their estimates a possible cost over-run of 15%.

Unfortunately, the current provincial government (Nalcor and government are indistinguishable) couldn’t deliver pizza and guarantee a mere 15% cost over-run. Government capital works projects these days are usually at least 50% more than they predict. On some projects they’ve gone 100% over budget.

You get the point.

There is only one combination of circumstances where the Danny/Jerome/Kathy idea for Muskrat Falls works out for taxpayers and a bunch of combinations in which it doesn’t. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know the odds of winning Lotto Jerome! are pretty small.

There are other aspects of the Muskrat Falls case that don’t make sense either, like the potential alternatives to Muskrat Falls, the export prospects and the forecasts for energy demand. Critics of the project have systematically demolished all of them. Not one survives to this day intact.

And yet Jerome! and Kathy Dunderdale and Nalcor keep pushing them.

Things didn’t get any better for the MF gang on Wednesday. Economist Jim Feehan dissected an underlying problem in how the province sets electricity prices. Tackling that one would encourage consumers to change some of their more wasteful ways they use energy. Lowering demand also lowers the need for expensive megaprojects. Feehan’s approach could, if current trends continue, allow Nalcor to avoid the most expensive megaproject in the province’s history, mothball the Holyrood plant and deliver consumers affordable electricity into the future.

If Feehan’s idea isn’t the only solution it’s one of the elements that a responsible provincial government would include in its energy policy for the province.

Feehan’s commentary is a sign of how the opposition to Muskrat Falls is growing. This time last year, Feehan thought Muskrat was a great – if pricy - idea. Having taken a hard look at the project, Feehan has changed his mind.

Feehan’s comments also reflect the way the discussion is going.l Critics of Muskrat Falls are looking not only at the weaknesses of the proposal itself, but also at the shortcomings of the current administration’s energy policy.

That’s good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

But for politicians like Jerome!, it means that two days of chatting up Paddy will turn into three and maybe more.

And the chances of winning more people to the cause just keep getting smaller and smaller.

Much like the chances that building Muskrat falls the way Jerome! and Kathy want to will deliver any benefit to the people who own the resource.

- srbp -

Great Minds Think Alike: “Jinkies!” edition #nlpoli

2012-01-11T15:30:00.000-03:30

Ruh roh!

What do Danny Williams, Kathy Dunderdale and Sarah Palin have in common?

They - and their bootlickers and wannabe bootlickers - all like to blame their own problems and shortcomings on people who write online. It’s all political bullshit, of course, but you can almost hear them saying “It would have worked too if it wasn’t for those pesky blogsters….and their dog! “

Scooby-doobie-doo!

- srbp -

Local economist questions Muskrat plans #nlpoli

2012-01-11T14:39:00.001-03:30

From the CD Howe Institute:

NEWFOUNDLAND’S ELECTRICITY OPTIONS: MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICE REQUIRES AN EFFICIENT PRICING REGIME

Jan. 11, 2012 – James P. Feehan

Newfoundland [and Labrador] should hold off on plans to develop a power project on the Lower Churchill River in Labrador, according to a report released today by the C.D. Howe Institute. In “Newfoundland’s Electricity Options: Making the Right Choice Requires an Efficient Pricing Regime,” Memorial University economist James P. Feehan says the province should first reform electricity prices to better reflect costs and reduce consumption, then assess its options.

For the study go to: http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_129.pdf

- srbp -

The real story of the Ottawa office #nlpoli

2012-01-11T07:30:00.000-03:30

Nobody’s been in the job since since January 2010.

There’s no evidence that the two people who held the job actually did anything substantive during the time from 2004 to 2010 that someone held down the position known derisively as the Ambassador or – as your humble e-scribbler preferred – the Premier’s Personal Envoy to Hy’s.

And yet it still took Premier Kathy Dunderdale a full year and then some of her own term as Premier, plus the experience of interviewing a few potential replacements to realise what Premiers before Williams knew: the whole thing was a foolish waste of time.

Lord sufferin’ dynamite, Old Man.

That is absolutely stunning.

And it tells you so much about how two successive Premiers and their administrations actually work.

They led with their strong suit: the hyper-torqued official announcement that was long on the bullshit and short on the truth. As a result, most of the conventional media reports were full of it, too. Take the Ceeb’s account as an example of the type.

As some media accounts of the Premier’s scrum with reporters make it sound, Dunderdale has found a new way of doing things, what with ministers, deputy ministers and other officials talking to their federal counterparts. And with communications better now that Kath and Steve are on the same wavelength, the Ottawa office is just not needed anymore.

No sir. There’s a new energy in town and, by gosh, the release assures us all “it made sense to have our Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat assume responsibility, over the long term, for the functions that would have been carried out through the Ottawa office.”

Whatever functions the office did perform – there were no people in it, evidently – they were such that over a six year period, the big job in the office sat vacant for about half the time. So whatever the crowd in Intergovernmental Affairs are taking on, odds are it wasn’t much. They will just carry doing what they have done since the 1970s: deal with their federal and provincial counterparts on a variety of issues.

So you caught that, right?

Since the 1970s, IGA has been doing all the things people claim this personal envoy job did. And they kept doing it all the way through the time this office existed, whether someone worked in it or not.

Now while your humble e-scribbler can say this based on his own knowledge of the provincial government and from seven years in the Premier’s Office, you really don’t have to go by that alone.

Consider the version of events by no less a person than Bill Rowe, the first personal envoy to Hy’s, Rhodes Scholar, radio host, writer and secret police report leaker extraordinaire. His insider’s account of things he was outside the room for made it plain Rowe did nothing while he was there.

There is no mention in the book’s of anything Rowe actually accomplished. Well, aside from wait around for a cell phone and a laptop and arrange to have his used snow tires shipped up to him from Sin Jawns. Like there was no place up there to buy new ones.

Now Rowe sold a lot of those books. Mainlanders are especially gullible, it turns out. Hopefully, the guy made a few bucks of the book. But if he only cleared a twonie, then his time in Ottawa at taxpayers’ expense was infinitely more productive for Rowe than it was for the people who footed the bill for his sojourn on the Rideau.

Our man in a Blue Line cab – Rowe’s eventual successor - did no better, although he stayed longer. Danny Williams acknowledged as much when Fitz packed it in at the end of his one and only contract. Williams found him a nice new job back home. Williams insisted the office in Ottawa would remain open, to be filled eventually with some other incumbent.

Kathy Dunderdale said the same thing after Danny handed over the Premier’s Office to her. Last June,

“The office serves a great purpose when it’s functioning the way that it should,” she told a Telegram editorial board [last] Wednesday. “And it’s important to me that we maintain that.”

Nothing changed in the intervening six months or so, except Dunderdale’s talking points. The bottom line remains now as it has since Danny Williams decided to give his old alum chum a nice perk; the job was a total waste of public money. Public servants in this province and cabinet ministers never stopped doing the work they and their predecessors have done.

The fact that it took the Tories two years to shut the office down and that it took Kathy Dunderdale a full year to arrive at an incredibly simple - and glaringly obvious – conclusion tells you this is a government that consistently has a hard time getting things done.

In other words, not a thing has changed since the serial government took office.

- srbp -

A legislative first in Newfoundland and Labrador #nlpoli

2012-01-10T11:00:00.000-03:30

If the province’s Liberals live up to the promise made in a news release issued Monday, they’ll make local legislative history.

Andrew Parsons, MHA for Burgeo-La Poile, announced today that he will be introducing a Bill to regulate the opening of the House of Assembly in the future.

Since Confederation, opposition political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador have contented themselves with taking one afternoon a week to debate a meaningless resolution.

While they’ve had the ability all along to introduce bills that could become law, no opposition party has ever tried before. It’s so common elsewhere that no one really pays attention to it.

Of course now that Parsons has told everyone, you can expect the NDP will start drafting bills and the Tories will try to figure out some procedural reason to stop it.

Good luck on the latter.

On the former that just means the Tories will have a much harder time in the House this spring than they expected.

And when the governing party has to work hard during a legislative session, that’s only a good thing.

- srbp -

OCI jams provincial fisheries minister #nlpoli

2012-01-10T07:30:00.000-03:30

The CBC online account is on the Ceeb’s website (here). That’s pretty much what everyone has been reporting, namely the impact fisheries minister Darin King’s comments on Friday had on Ocean Choice International.

Check the company’s news release and you’ll see that is also what the company started out with:

Sullivan said remarks by fisheries minister Darin King have left global customers, employees and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador questioning the credibility of the company, something he said should never have happened.

Attacks on a private sector company that adversely affect the company’s financial position is old hat for the provincial Conservatives. It’s the same tactic Tom Rideout, right, used on Fishery Products International when he was fisheries minister.

To be fair, King isn’t doing the same thing. His comments on Friday came more out of a short-term political need to make it look like he was doing something besides looking impotent.

In the end, King made a statement everyone knew rang a little hollow: no one believed the government would issue a permanent exemption on processing anyway. Then he took a shot at OCI that led the company to come out in an even stronger position. Except among the usual gang of myth mongers and ignorant windbag politicians, people in Newfoundland and Labrador looking at OCI’s position will appreciate the sensible, rational tone of it:

However, when these discussions veer off to public commentary that is damaging to our reputation, we must take exception.

…

I respect the right of the province to make decisions on matters before them. And, I respect government’s decision to disallow permanent exemptions on flatfish and redfish.

…

We understand now that government is in receipt of all information requested to date, apart from minor clarifications received today. (a direct refutation of King’s claim)

In reply, King can lash out again or let the comment from OCI go by. Either way, King loses. If he lashes out, his eventual and inevitable capitulation by granting long-term exemptions will look like he collapsed under pressure from the company. And if he let’s the comments slide by, King will look like he is afraid of OCI. When he inevitably grants the company long term exemptions, he will look like he collapsed in fear.

How does Darin King win?

At this point, King can’t win. He can only hope to limit damage. Whoever advised him to issue the news release on Friday should get the boot for being a political moron.

Arguably, the only politician in a worse position is Liberal fisheries critic Jim Bennett. As CBC quotes Bennett:

"You can't blame a company for taking as many liberties as the government will let them take."

Anyone who thinks the current fisheries crisis is caused by slack government regulation of the industry and greedy irresponsible fishing companies running roughshod over everything and everyone is either a fool on his own or a fool taking advice from an even bigger idiot.

There’s just no polite way to put it.

- srbp -

A familiar, fishy tale #nlpoli

2012-01-09T11:00:00.000-03:30

Scientists told some American fishermen before Christmas that the cod the fishermen depend on for their livelihood are in danger of disappearing unless the fishermen change their ways.

Frig off, say the fishermen.

People from this province will recognise the drama. Evidence says one thing. A whole bunch of people deny it.

The drama continues to this day in Newfoundland and Labrador as the same people who have fought steadfastly against reforming the fishery continue their struggle.

You can spot the denial experts because they all got sucked in by a news release from the fisheries department last week. ‘Ocean Choice International Denied Permanent Redfish Exemption” screamed the headline. Hooray, screamed the Deniers. That’ll teach the Latest Evil Ones that they cannot pull a fast one.

Yes folks, there is no crisis.

It’s all just made up.

Now of course, the provincial government won’t grant a permanent exemption. The fisheries minister and his colleagues are still in denial about the scope of the fisheries crisis and the need for dramatic change.

But in a few weeks time, Darin King will have to do something. Odds are he will give OCI what it really wants, namely the end of restrictions on its processing licenses that force the company to process fish in this province even if it isn’t profitable to do so.

They won‘t be permanent exemptions.

But they company will get exemptions.

The reason is right there in the release:

“Yesterday we learned that OCI intends to proceed with plans to fish redfish from quotas purchased from license holders in Nova Scotia. The company has said if we provide an exemption, they will land the fish in Newfoundland and Labrador, otherwise it would be landed elsewhere.”

Then you put that with King’s guiding principles, as reported by the Telegram:

… no [provincial] government subsidies for the fishery, and making moves that maximize the benefit of the resource for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

King is just pretending because he is politically jammed up. He gets praised today but in a few days or weeks, the same people will be attacking him.

Denying reality is a familiar, fishy tale whether you are in New England or Newfoundland.

The only difference is how long it takes for reality to take hold.

- srbp -

Politics and Numbers #nlpoli

2012-01-09T07:30:00.000-03:30

Regular readers of these scribblers will recall that we’ve discussed some problems that people have with math.

More specifically we’ve talked about numeracy problems, which is a little bit different. That’s not just the arithmetic functions – add, subtract, multiply, divide – but also with things like logic and reasoning. According to some sources, as many as two out of every three people in Newfoundland and Labrador lack the basic ability with math and logic to function in a modern society.

That gets to be a pretty scary idea when you realise the importance of numbers, counting, math proportions and all the other number-related ideas that we run into during the course of a day.

Numbers play a big part in politics just like they do in everyday society.

One your e-scribblers favourites was the notion of the provincial government being too poor to spend money on this that or the other. it’s a line the current crowd ruling the place used to toss out when ordinary people wanted something, even though the Conservatives always managed to come up with billions of public dollars for their own projects.

We are talking before 2008, mind you. back then, Danny Williams got a lot of political mileage by making all sorts of wild and in some instances completely false claims about the state of the province’s finances. When it came to federal transfer payments, the level of false information was truly astounding.

Somewhere in the midst of all that your humble e-scribbler called one of the radio talk shows and threw some numbers on the table. The regular callers, some of them fairly obvious government plants were spouting off all sorts of thoughts and ideas. Around the same time, the guy who is currently the Bloc NDP member of parliament for St. John’s South-Mount Pearl ran a newspaper. His “balance sheet” on Confederation contained a raft of information carefully selected to “prove” his predetermined conclusion.

Anyway, what your e-scribbler tossed out were then- current figures on what each government spent each year in total on public services. The figures also came for different sectors. They were delivered on a per capita basis. That means the numbers showed how much the government spent for each person within the province.

Newfoundland and Labrador spent more person than any other province in the country in total and definitely in some sectors like health. Total spending. Divide by population. There’s the answer. To make it even more difficult, your faithful scribe took numbers produced by the dominion statistics bureau.

The first response by the callers who followed was total rejection. Not true. Must be lies by that evil federal agent, the notorious “blogster”.

Go back to March 2007 and you can find another, related example. Danny Williams complaining about the federal government and Equalization. A simple demonstration by your humble e-scribbler – using some basic math – that Williams’ claims were, if not unfounded, pretty much irrelevant. The provincial government would get four times as much per capita in oil revenues as the supposed loss from federal transfers.

A post by John Sides at The Monkey Cage prompted this post at SRBP. “Americans and Innumeracy” discusses not only the same sort of problem with numbers but also the idea of whether or not being bad at math is normal for humans. Note that the problem Sides discusses is similar to the one in this province: people believe things that are not true. That’s the root of the problem with people estimating immigration figures wrongly: they don’t know the facts so their beliefs lead them to miscalculate the figures when they are asked to do so.

That’s a bit of a different problem that not being able to do the math in the first place.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the basic political problem with numbers hasn’t gone away.

The most obvious issue is polling. Those links cover the whole thing and since the issue is full of problems with math and understanding what the numbers mean, there’s no easy way to summarise it. Let’s just say that the consistent misreporting of poll information has served as the basis for a huge political myth in this province that’s driven a raft of other things along.

You can see it in the fishery crisis, too. Plenty of people, including those arguing most strenuously against any change at all, don’t seem to know any of the numbers involved. If they did, they wouldn’t be seriously suggesting that keeping people chained to a splitting table for poverty wages is a good idea. Some others quite clearly do know the numbers and they argue against change anyway.

One of the numbers they should be looking at ties back to this post from four years ago on local dependence on federal income support. The gross provincial numbers may have changed but their ideal fishery still works on the idea that people make some money from their labour and the taxpayers cover the rest.

You can see the numbers problem in the Muskrat Falls project, although there it’s a bit different. The more people learn, the less they like the idea. And a lot of that has to do with a detailed analysis of the numbers on demand, supply and export potential. The numbers don’t add up to support the project. People actually get those numbers.

Meanwhile, the Equalization and federal transfer thing just came back in a rather curious way. Old Tory warhorse Norm Doyle just got a sweet plum appointment to the Antechamber to the Kingdom of Heaven. After a stint in provincial politics (first elected 1979, retired 1993), Doyle took off for Ottawa as a member of parliament (elected 1997 election, and retired in 2008). Now he’s back as a senator (another fat salary, a light workload and pensionable time).

Doyle claims he just couldn’t handle retirement so he looked for a way back into politics. Apparently volunteering on a party committee wasn’t enough. And if he couldn’t handle retirement, counselling would have been cheaper for taxpayers for his personal (couldn’t volunteer or find a job or hobby) or psychological dysfunction but that’s another issue.

Doyle, you see, was a federal Tory who used the Equalization myths pushed by the provincial Conservatives to his own federal political advantage. And then, when the political winds shifted, Doyle went with them federally.

The provincial myth mongers used that against Doyle, now rebranded as a traitor. One e-mail correspondent to SRBP raised that issue after news broke of Doyle’s latest political gig. The same issue is now starting to circulate on the Internet, not surprisingly from some of the most persistent purveyors of false and misleading political information.

Funny how those numbers came back to bite Doyle on his political ass.

- srbp -

Traffic to start the New Year by #nlpoli

2012-01-08T07:30:00.000-03:30

- srbp -

Separated at birth: little plumber version #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-07T07:30:00.000-03:30

Nice to see former natural resources minister Shawn Skinner at an Ice Caps game Friday night.

The place was rocking especially as the Caps sloughed off the holiday stupor after the first period and started playing some hockey.

Ever notice that sometimes when you look at Shawn you can’t help but wonder where his cap went?

Seriously.

Shawn walks by.

You have the thought.

And then the stadium sound system starts blaring out the little plumber’s theme music.

Way friggin’ spooky.

Hop, you little plumber!

Hop, hop hop!

- srbp -

So much for senate reform #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-06T23:12:00.000-03:30

Surely to mercy, if Prime Minister Stephen Harper was halfway serious about senate reform he could find someone else from Newfoundland and Labrador besides Norm Doyle to take up a senate seat.

Maybe Harper could have found someone other than a guy who has been recycled more times than a university freshman’s one good shirt.

And even if senate reform wasn’t the reason for making the appointment, there has got to be someone in the province who has distinguished himself or herself in the arts world, academia, social policy activism or business who could take up the appointment.

If Norm Doyle got the job, the list must have been made up of Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador who hadn’t followed Danny Williams blindly and who could be reached without a séance.

The last thing the senate needs is another political hack taking up space, drawing a nice salary (on top of his public sector pension) and not doing very much else besides.

- srbp -

Williams’ old political promises: Labrador #nlpoli

2012-01-06T11:00:00.000-03:30

Now that Danny Williams is a special advisor to a company with a nice little iron ore project in western labrador, maybe we should look at Danny Williams’ political promises about resource development.

Maybe we can get some idea of what advice he might give his new client.

In 2003, Williams promised that he would stop the give-aways of our resources. Specifically, Williams promised that he would:

“Ensure nonrenewable [sic]resource developments benefit future as well as present generations by controlling the pace of development, promoting value-added product manufacturing, and spending royalties in ways that have long-term benefits across generations.”

That sounds like a good idea. Surely, he still believes in those commitments.

In 2003, Williams had some pretty firm ideas about what needed to happen:

“Developing a healthy and competitive mineral sector is a solid strategy for ensuring the Province's future prosperity. From the mining and processing of ore through to product manufacturing and assembly, the mineral sector can make a vital contribution to economic growth and employment in both urban and rural regions of the Province.

A Progressive Conservative government will work with the industry to remove barriers to value-added activities, and to make the industry the most high-tech, productive and socially responsible in Canada.
Our goal is to increase the activities associated with the processing of minerals in the Province and related business activities in the service and supply industries, such as construction, energy, engineering and environmental services, research and development, equipment parts and supplies, and financial and legal services.

A strong mineral industry for the Province will be built on progressive legislation that will:

Require that ore concentrate be processed to a finished metal product in the Province where it is feasible to do so.
Secure preferences for local companies in supplying goods and services to the industry, first choice of jobs for residents of the Province, and training when there are skill shortages.
Link royalties and taxes to market prices and the extent of value-added activity undertaken in the Province.
Provide for a detailed geological database compiled from geological surveys and mapping programs that identifies new mineral exploration targets, and makes geoscience information easily available to everyone.
Support development of the Province's mining sector through tax incentives for prospectors and exploration companies.
Ensure lands are returned to a natural state after completion of exploration and mining and quarry activities.

he certainly believed those things in 2007. When the popular Premier sought re-election, Williams committed that he would

continue to discharge our responsibilities to ensure mineral exploration, mining and mineral processing operations in our province return full and fair benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador
work to attract secondary and tertiary mineral-based processing and manufacturing operations to Newfoundland and Labrador communities

… [and]

work with Labradorians to achieve increased benefits from resource developments associated with mining operations in Labrador West and at Voisey's Bay and hydroelectricity development on the Lower Churchill River.

Guess that means Danny won’t be advising the company to ship unprocessed iron ore out of the province.

Get ready people of Labrador.

If Danny delivers on his old political promises, you will not be able to stand the prosperity.

Of course, now that he isn’t a politician any more there’s no guarantee he will still push for the same ideas he used to talk about.

Maybe someone should ask Williams about give aways and getting the most for the people of the province from their resources.

- srbp -

What? No equity stake? Alderon takes Danny Williams on board as “special advisor” #nlpoli

2012-01-06T07:30:00.000-03:30

From the corporate news release issued on January 5:

Alderon is pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Danny Williams, QC, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, as Special Advisor to the Chairman of Alderon. Mr. Williams served as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador from October 2003 until November 2010, retiring from the position at a time when his government had an approval rating of over 80%.

Alderon is developing its 100% owned Kami Iron Ore Project located within the Labrador Trough, next to the mining towns of Wabush, Labrador City and Fermont. The Kami Project currently hosts an NI 43-101 indicated mineral resource of 490 million tonnes at 30.0% iron and an additional inferred mineral resource of 598 million tonnes at 30.3% iron contained within three zones: North Rose, Rose Central and Mills Lake. Up to an additional 18,000 m of infill drilling will be carried out during the 2012 Winter Drill Program with a view to upgrading a substantial portion of the currently defined inferred resource to the indicated resource category in preparation for the completion of a Feasibility Study in Q3 2012.

Based on the recently completed Rose Central Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA"), Alderon plans to commence commercial production in 2015 at a rate of 8 million tonnes per year ("Mtpa") at a concentrate grade of 65.5% iron. Alderon has initiated the Federal and Provincial Environmental Assessment Process and the registration documents include a provision to increase planned production from 8 Mtpa to 16 Mtpa as part of a second phase capital expansion.

Alderon expects the development of the Kami Project to provide significant economic benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador including the creation of over 1,500 full time jobs over a period of 20 years including 268 jobs directly at the mine and concentrator, 1,254 jobs indirectly for local service and support groups and 768 temporary jobs during construction. These job creation forecasts are based on the 8 Mtpa production scenario only.

...

It's only after all sorts of information that isn't about Danny Williams and his new appointment that you get a comment from Williams about his appointment.

From the way this news release is written, the most important thing to know about Danny is that he was Premier and left the job when he had a really high approval rating.

Interesting.

So anyway, Williams will see some familiar faces at Alderon.

Brian Dalton is on Alderon board of directors. Regular SRBP readers will remember him. Dalton is president and chief executive of Altius. They made a proposal on financing the Lower Churchill. And when a refinery project Dalton was backing had some financial difficulties no less a person than Danny Hisself dragged Kathy Dunderdale to the Middle East in an unsuccessful effort to scare up some investors.

Danny likely also knows John Baker, who is also a director of Altius among other things.

If Danny drops by the offices, he will likely smile when he sees Gary Norris, Alderon’s executive vice president of government and community affairs. You see, Gary used to work for Danny as Clerk of the Executive Council.

Gary retired the same time Danny did.

The same day, even.

Try playing six degrees of separation in Newfoundland and Labrador.

You’d be lucky to get two steps.

- srbp -

Seven Habits of Spectacularly Ineffective Politicians #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-05T07:30:00.000-03:30

“Run government like a business” is an old line.

Some people use it as a rallying cry for success and innovation.

Others think of it as a recipe for disaster.

Regardless of which side of that argument you come down on, you can sometimes find value in applying ideas from one sector to the other.

Take, for example, a list of seven habits attributed to business leaders who screw up published online at forbes.com recently. It’s a variation on the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People except you learn positive lessons from the negative experiences that illustrate the bad habits.

Included in the forbes.com column are some warning signs as well. Those are indicators that while your business leader might not have the full-blown bad habit, he or she is headed in that direction.

And bear in kind: some of the companies cited in the article were successful for a period of time or appeared to be quite successful. Over the longer term, though, things weren’t quite that good.

So what would happen if you took the seven habits of what forbes.com called unsuccessful business executives and applied them to politicians? Let’s have some fun:

Habit # 1: They see themselves and their companies as dominating their environment.

Think of this as the idea that they can do no wrong, that everything they think or say is genius and that they crap brilliance every minute of ever day.

Unlike successful leaders, failed leaders who never question their dominance fail to realize they are at the mercy of changing circumstances.They vastly overestimate the extent to which they actually control events and vastly underestimate the role of chance and circumstance in their success.

The rules only apply to other people. They don’t apply to us.

They live in a bubble.

Sound familiar?

Of course it does.

Warning Sign #1: A lack of respect

You won’t even need to think too hard to come up with an example of a politician who consistently shows an utter lack of respect – and sometimes outright contempt – for other people and their ideas.

While those other links are to a couple of Danny Williams’ defining characteristics, that lack of respect thing is one Kathy Dunderdale leads in. She loves to claim that her opponents are stupid or incompetent and usually that’s the sum total of her argument.

Habit #2: They identify so completely with the company that there is no clear boundary between their personal interests and their corporation’s interests.

Warning Sign #2: A question of character

House of Assembly spending scandal.

And if you want something creepy, you can always go back to the Old Man’s 2007 claim:

I think I represent in my own heart and soul the hearts and souls of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It’s hard to think of a statement in which someone confuses himself with the whole.

Habit #3: They think they have all the answers.

If anyone can think of a time when Danny Williams ever took advice from someone else and acknowledged it publicly, then by all means share the story with the rest of us. Did he ever take disagreement with his pronouncements well?

If you want a Dunderdale example, consider her approach to Muskrat Falls. She and her team of geniuses have all the answers. So far Dunderdale hasn’t heard a single criticism of the project that makes her doubt the wisdom of ploughing ahead with the project.

And, in any event, all the critics are picking at little things in their predictably partisan way so what would they know?

Warning Sign for #3: A leader without followers

Habit #4: They ruthlessly eliminate anyone who isn’t completely behind them.

Think about the bizarro need to call people who wrote letters to the editor just to sort them out or blast them as traitors.

Let’s not forget the periodic expressions of concern about the handful of people who didn’t love Hisself unconditionally. In the Straits after the by-election he sniffed about how much he had done for people and yet they didn’t vote for his hand-picked candidate.

The Old Man may not have relentlessly eliminated anyone but the Yes-Men and Yes-Women but he was overly concerned with dissent.

Warning Sign #4: Executive departures

Think Beth Marshall in Health, Florence Delaney or the executive level churn in the public service under Danny Williams and Kathy Dunderdale.

Habit #5: They are consummate spokespersons, obsessed with the company image.

Poll goosing.

Public comments about having to spend 50% of his time dealing with counter-spinning negativity.

Micromanaging an access to information request to withhold copies of his public speeches.

Clinical example of this habit.

Warning Sign #5: Blatant attention-seeking

This Hour Has 22 Minutes in a Hurricane

Habit #6: They underestimate obstacles.

Muskrat Falls.

Warning Sign #6: Excessive hype

Pick an example. There are too many to list since 2003.

Habit #7: They stubbornly rely on what worked for them in the past.

Danny Williams: the Ultimate One Trick Pony..

Prime Ministers.

Oil Companies.

A lawyer from GFW.

Randy Simms.

If Danny Williams wasn’t lacing into someone for something, he just wasn’t having a good day.

Warning Sign #7: Constantly referring to what worked in the past

Anybody recall that offshore oil agreement thingy?

- srbp -

Whose camp is it anyway? #nlpoli

2012-01-04T13:50:00.000-03:30

Leo Abbass, mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Regular readers will know him already.

Quoted this time by Voice of the Cabinet Minister about a controversial work camp a company wants to build in his community. VOCM linked the camp to Muskrat Falls, and so did Leo, according to the version on the story they had on Tuesday:

The Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay says in order for work to continue on the Muskrat Falls project, a work camp has to be built in his town. The proposed camp by the Shaw Group on Kelland Drive has come under scrutiny by area residents who think the 300 person sleeping and eating facility should be built elsewhere. Others, meanwhile, think local residents are not being given fair job opportunities. Mayor Leo Abbass says the attention that this work-project is receiving online seems to be based on what he calls 'the mixing of issues'.

He refers to one note on Facebook which says that the person was shocked that these jobs were being offered to outside people before they were offered to local residents. He says the expertise is not available in his town, and engineers and technicians have specialized skills and they will be brought in for this project. 360 members have joined a Facebook page opposing the development, which would require town council to amend its development regulations. Abbass says public submissions will still be accepted until January 12th, and he hopes a public meeting scheduled for Thursday on the matter will help clarify the confusion. He says he thinks people are jumping the gun on what this project is all about. He says the grief that he is hearing right now about this work camp seems to based on what he calls 'a lot of misconception out there'.

Problem.

The work camp has nothing to do with Muskrat Falls, according to no less an authority than the people proposing the multi-billion dollar debt scheme.

“Nalcor not involved with proposed Kelland Drive camp” is the title of a post by vice president Gil Bennett on the Nalcor blog.

I assure residents that Nalcor Energy is not involved in this proposal by Shaw Group. Their proposal is not a requirement for the Muskrat Falls Project.

Bennett also outlined the local benefits scheme for Muskrat Falls.

On Wednesday, VOCM was still running the story connecting the camp to the Muskrat Falls project.

And they were still mentioning Leo Abbass who was also making the same connection. The Wednesday version:

A public meeting will take place tomorrow night to discuss the construction of a controversial work camp in Happy Valley- Goose Bay. The local town council is proposing to amend its development regulations, which has residents worried that the 300-person camp would be built too close to homes. The camp will provide food, services, and shelter to engineers and technicians working on the Muskrat Falls project. Happy Valley-Goose Bay Mayor Leo Abbass says having a work camp in town is better than the situation in Labrador City and Wabush. He says contractors in Lab West have been buying up living spaces, a move which further tightens the housing market.

He says the work camp project in Happy Valley-Goose Bay will help alleviate the possibility of contractors buying existing properties, and then using them to house their workers. The proposed work camp has generated a fair bit of opposition from area residents, who have set up a Facebook page opposed to the project.

Leo has a bunch of problems, evidently, not the least of which is squaring his version of what the camp is about with what the Muskrat Falls people are saying.

One of the ways of doing that might be for Leo to have town officials look at any municipal regulations that would hinder growth in the town. Leo could also talk to his provincial government buddies about shifting their regulations that hinder development of affordable housing.

If Leo and his council want to avoid the housing nightmare they have in Labrador West, then some regulatory changes would be far easier than backing a work camp for a project that the work camp apparently isn’t connected to in the first place.

- srbp -

More on the polling controversy #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-04T11:00:00.000-03:30

Susan Delacourt, from The Star, December 30:

Canada’s polling industry could be in for a shakeup in 2012, after some major knocks to its reputation in 2011.

Regular readers will recall the controversy from the federal election and from the fall provincial election from the series on polling and politics.

The Delacourt article mentions concerns voiced by pollsters themselves, including comments by Ipsos chief executive Darrell Bricker. He complained about the polling firms themselves and the media and how they report polls.

Delacourt also has some observations by Nik Nanos:

The MRIA [the industry association in Canada] does have a code of conduct and does audit polling firms to see whether they meet its “gold-seal” standard, says Nanos. But he’d like to see MRIA being more active in investigating members, and when it finds problems, Nanos believes the association should be publishing details of the polling transgressions, either on the website or through periodic bulletins.

The SRBP series included the MRIA standards. One of the tidbits that didn’t make it into the series was the standards contained in an FAQ produced by Newspapers Canada in 2008. The broadcast media don’t have any industry standards at all as best as your humble e-scribbler could find, let alone anything close to these standards for newspapers.

When I publish an opinion poll, what do I have to include?

If you publish a "real" opinion poll that is - not an unofficial "streeter" - you are required to include certain information if you are the first person to release the information or if you publish it within 24 hours of its first release.

You must include:

the name of the sponsor of the poll

the name of the organization who conducted the poll

the date on which or the period during which the poll was conducted

the population from which the sample of survey respondents was drawn

the number of people contacted to participate

the margin of error, if applicable

As newspapers, you must also include:

the wording of the survey question

instructions on how to obtain a written report of the survey results.

If I sponsor an opinion poll, are there any additional requirements?

If you sponsor a public opinion survey, you must, after the release of the survey, provide, on request, a written report that contains the following information:'

the name and address of the sponsor of the survey

the name and address of the person or organization that conducted the survey

the date on which or the period during which the survey was conducted

Information about the method used to collect the data from which the survey results were derived, including:

the sampling method

the population from which the sample was drawn

the size of the sample

the number of people asked to participate in the survey and the numbers and percentages of them who did not participate in the survey

the number of people who refused to participate in the survey and were ineligible to participate in the survey

the dates and time of day of the interviews

the method used to recalculate data to take into account the results of participants who expressed no opinion, and any weighting factors or normalization procedures used in deriving the results of the survey

the wording of the survey questions and the margin of error

A sponsor may charge up to $0.25 per page for a copy of the report.

That’s a pretty comprehensive list of information. Following this standard would go a long way to correcting many of the problems with media reports of polling, including their own polls.

Too bad newspapers don’t follow the standards at all.

- srbp -

Christmas Goodies #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-04T07:30:00.000-03:30

A couple of provocative articles turned up online over the holidays. Now that everyone is getting back into the work-a-day groove, check them out.

Energy consultant Tom Adams took a hard look at Muskrat Falls and gave it a failing grade. Adams doesn’t limit his comments to the MF project alone. He also takes a look at the current rate structure:

The prevailing electricity rate structure for service on the island also suggests that the government is not serious about seeking the lowest cost options for meeting the province’s energy needs. The sale of power during the winter is highly subsidized, with the financial losses recovered by overcharging the rest of the year. Although this rate design is normal utility practice in far too many jurisdictions, given the cost structure for the power sector on the island where two thirds of the power is supplied by hydro-electric facilities, this practice is particularly wasteful of public resources. It would be interesting to know how much potential energy from on-island hydro-electric facilities is spilled during the spring, summer and fall. The prevailing rate structure encourages electric heating, where the power to drive those electric heaters is derived from oil. Using the oil directly for heating would be about three times as efficient as using the oil indirectly through electricity. If the government was really serious about mitigating the high economic and environmental costs of oil-fired generation, why would such a wasteful pricing methodology be allowed to persist?

How much gets spilled, Tom? Crap loads. The island is also in a situation where huge amounts of hydro currently spill because of deficiencies in the interconnection between the main part of the island and the bit where a goodly part of the population lives.

As for the pricing structure, that’s the result of a chronic lack of policy direction from the provincial government and weakened oversight by the regulator. It’s the same climate that spawned the Muskrat Falls monster.

When you are done with that, take a look at the second biting online commentary by CBC’s John Furlong. He’s the host of the Fisheries Broadcast and one of the most seasoned journalists in the province. That gives him an impressive background which, of course, is the polite way of saying “he’s seen it all and he doesn’t swallow the bullshit”.

An example:

The union might not like it, the people in Marystown might not like it, and the people in Port Union might not like it, but it's time to lay down the over-heated rhetoric, be in the vanguard of this change and do something constructive.

You can tell Furlong is hitting the target by the vicious personal attacks on him from the anonyturds in the comments section of the CBC website. This is his second sharply worded opinion piece. it really livens up the CBC website. Here’s hoping they make more use of him.

- srbp -

SRBP at Seven #nlpoli #cdnpoli

2012-01-03T11:00:00.000-03:30

The Sir Robert Bond Papers turns seven years old today.

The purpose remains simple enough, as described in the first anniversary post:

While much has changed in the past year, the core goal for the Bond Papers is still the same: to contribute to an informed discussion of public policy issues. It started with the offshore and in the first few weeks that proved to be the issue that dominated.

Since then, there have been posts on everything from the fishery to alleged spy planes flying through Newfoundland and Labrador, Titan missiles and economic development. Some posts are light-hearted and humourous. Others have been deeper and wordier. Whether they succeeded in being funny or serious, as the case may be, is best left to its readers.

On the fourth anniversary, in 2009, your humble e-scribbler posted draft whistleblower legislation.

In 2011, the anniversary post went by the wayside in favour of the daily fare: Muskrat Falls financial problems.

This morning, your humble e-scribbler started a new short series on democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

All are typical of what this corner of the Internet has become in the last seven years. SRBP is not just about adding to the voices out there. It’s about getting at the layers underneath. It’s about explaining the why behind arguments and beliefs.

SRBP has also become about advocating for new initiatives. When the province’s most popular politician Danny failed to deliver his promise of whistleblower protection, your humble e-scribbler delivered it. Look through the archives and you’ll find all sorts of policy ideas for the fishery, the economy and education and early childhood development.

And in some areas, your humble e-scribbler has been telling you things you won;t find anywhere else.

SRBP was an immediate opponent of the Abitibi expropriation. It was fundamentally wrong, as a matter of principle. The government never told the full story of why the expropriated the hydroelectric properties in central Newfoundland. Finding out that the government botched the whole thing and expropriated environmental cesspools made it only more stupid than it was at the beginning.

After a brief examination, your humble e-scribbler also became a firm opponent of Muskrat Falls. In the year since Danny Williams announced the scheme, more people have joined the ranks of the critics and opponents. As more people learn more, they invariably realise the project is wrong.

SRBP’s critique goes much further than just picking at bits and pieces of one small part of a much larger problem with the current administration’s policy. Your humble e-scribbler has already proposed an alternative way to manage the province’s electricity resources that will genuinely work in the public’s best interest.

As SRBP enters its eighth year, the ultimate judge of its success or failure is you, the reader. There are many thousands more of you today than there were seven years ago. You send e-mails, make comments on posts or in some cases, pull your humble e-scribbler aside for a quick chat.

Politicians used to make angry phone calls in 2005 to gripe about a comment or opinion. In 2007, the Old Man took to threatening your humble e-scribbler publicly. In 2011, his successor gave the ultimate compliment to those of us who toil online by singling us out in her year-end interviews.

All of that speaks to the fact that people are interested in what they read here. As long as they keep coming and as long as your humble e-scribbler can keep going, the Sir Robert Bond Papers will be here.

Thank you for your support.

Thank you for your interest.

And to each of you, every wish for a happy and prosperous and healthy New Year from your humble e-scribbler.

- srbp -