Most of you are likely dissecting the American presidential election or hopped up to talk about the House of Assembly. Well, there’s plenty of time for that.
Consider this post a minor diversion, more about the backstory than about the discussion of what just happened. We’ll get back to some new and more involved subjects on Thursday.
Tuckamore Capital made a single political donation during the 2011 general election.
The company gave $1500 to Keith Hutchings, who ran for the Conservatives in Ferryland.
Dean MacDonald is president and chief executive officer of Tuckamore Capital.
In 2011, MacDonald was being courted behind the scenes to take over the leadership of the Liberal Party from an ailing Yvonne Jones.
At the time, Jones denied it publicly, as reported by CBC. The same CBC story quoted MacDonald as saying that “as a Liberal I will be helping Yvonne in any way I can in terms of candidates, fundraising and all the things that go on with an election.”
The Tuckamore donation occurred during the campaign.
-srbp-
Last winter we took a look at the idea of cost per vote. Basically, you compare the amount of money a campaign spent with the number of votes it got.
It’s a way of measuring the efficiency of a political campaign. The lower the number, the more efficient the campaign is.
Here’s a chart showing the cost per vote for the three major parties in Newfoundland and Labrador in the four general election years 1996, 1999, 2003, and 2007. The calculations added the annual contributions for each party and the specific contributions for each general election during the year of the general election and divided the sum by the number of votes cast for each party.
The chart doesn’t include 2011 since Elections NL hasn’t released the annual contribution figures for that year yet.
The water management controversy flared briefly at the end of last week thanks to Geoff Meeker’s blog at the Telegram and a couple of interviews by the 2041 Group and Nalcor’s Gil Bennett.
This is one of those issues where a lot of people either tune out early on because it appears highly technical and complicated. Actually it isn’t. The topic only appears complicated.
It only appears complicated because of the very convoluted, long-winded, and very unhelpful way the cats at Nalcor talk about the water management agreement. They go all techie.
Once you get a handle on the whole water management thing, it’s quite easy to understand and it’s quite easy to see where the possible problems are.
“I know why you did it.
I know you were afraid.
Who wouldn't be?
… There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, … .
He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.”
-srbp-
Lots of anguish and lots of humour attend the news that George Lucas has sold out to Disney.
A sample of the fun:
And another:
-srbp-
Anyone with half a clue knows that you cannot develop a reliable, efficient electricity system built on type of generation only.
You need a mix so that the advantages of one type offset the weaknesses of another. All hydro is hard to do if you need steady supply because it tends to vary with the water flow. Wind is even worse for that. Oil and coal are good for steady supplies but they tend to be expensive, dirty or both. Natural gas is very cool, especially these days, because not only is there lots of it but it is very inexpensive and can deliver electricity pretty much on demand.
Only in Newfoundland and Labrador do we have access to trillions of cubic feet of natural gas already found, trillions more likely to be discovered, and a provincial government that doesn’t want to develop it because the natural gas is not expensive enough to use.
One of the things everyone is learning this week is that a consultant who accepts all the assumptions Nalcor used to arrive at its conclusion in the first place will - inevitably - reach the same conclusions.
Some people will think that the second report proves that the first conclusion was right.
Unfortunately, such is not the case. It merely means that – inevitably –such an approach will repeat the same mistakes, errors, and flaws just as readily as it might get something right.
Think of it as a case of GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.
Oh, man they have got a Creature from the Black Lagoon in development at Moebius.
It might not hit the shelves until January 2013, though.
-srbp-
-srbp-
Expect to hear a lot more in the next couple of days about a comment Jerome Kennedy made on CBC Radio’s Crosstalk on Wednesday.
The reason is that back in the spring Kennedy said this to CBC about the opposition parties and debates:
"The problem right now is that I'm not sure these opposition parties are going to provide quality debate on anything," Kennedy said at the time.
Now his tune is different:
…And at that point, I was more critical of critics that I am today," said Kennedy.
"And I became very open to the debate as a result of the PUB's failure to make a decision."
Nalcor’s new marketing website for Muskrat Falls includes a little feature that supposedly shows you what your electricity bill will be with and without Muskrat Falls.
Even though you will pay for Muskrat Falls until at least 2067, they only show the comparisons out to 2030 on the new calculator.
So try a monthly bill currently of $200.
According to Nalcor, your monthly electricity bill with the Marvellous Muskrat will be $268 in 2025.
In 2010, they gave an estimate out to 2040 using a bill that was $200 in 2017. On that basis, your monthly bill in 2025 would be $208 in 2025.
That’s a huge difference.
But ya gotta wonder why they changed the way they presented the numbers. It just makes an already confusing situation – for many people – all the more confusing.
Most people aren’t really worried about the costs that far out in the future. They are more concerned with more immediate costs, like say the impact on their taxes or money they’d rather spend on health care but will now have to devote to paying for an enormous dam up in Labrador.
All the same, looking at the comparison charts. The monthly savings aren’t all that great. Even in 2030, you’d be saving less than $50 a month. Nalcor’s total estimated savings over the 14 years between 2016 and 2030 is only $3811.
That’s $272 a year, on average. What’s everything else going to cost in 2025 or 2030 if oil is going to be at the sorts of prices Nalcor assumes? Besides, on the front end of that period the costs are almost identical. There’s no comparative advantage to switching until well into the future.
Maybe all that is a bit too esoteric for some people.
Just look at the numbers. Some people are going to conclude - likely incorrectly - that in a mere two years, the monthly cost for Muskrat Falls for the ordinary consumer appears to have jumped $60 a month. Once someone gets that idea in their heads, even if it is completely wrong those $50 a month in theoretical savings way off in the future are going to seem like what they are today: nothing.
-srbp-
Big Show.
Room full of people all there because they have a direct interest in the project.
Live streaming by the news media.
And all to release the latest cost estimates for Muskrat Falls. The show was so big, however, that it looked like someone had decided to puff the whole thing up to make it appear much more important than it was.
That turned out to be a fairly accurate impression.
Some things to bear in mind as the provincial government starts its latest information offensive on Muskrat Falls:
Overall, don’t expect to see any new information from the provincial government. Their objective is not to inform or persuade. Their goal is to plough through the next couple of weeks in the hope that they can get the Muskrat off their political backs.
This has been a done deal since 2010.
Claims to the contrary are complete foolishness.
-srbp-
When did the companies involved in the Hebron project sanction it?
Anyone?
Don’t google it.
When did ExxonMobil and all those companies give the project team the green-light to start building the gravity base and all the others bits that will lead to oil production on the fourth field offshore Newfoundland and Labrador?
Sanction.
The green light.
No?
A couple of the exceedingly small changes in the recent cabinet shuffle came out of the Bill 29 fiasco. Felix Collins went from the relatively low profile job of justice minister to the complete obscurity of intergovernmental affairs.
Everyone saw that.
And over in another corner, there was a switcheroo people didn’t notice quite as much. Jerome Kennedy gave up the job of directing Government business in the House so that Darin King could take over.
There was no doubt Jerome had completely frigged up in the House, just like there’s no doubt the Tories are way down in the polls. The two went hand in hand all last session and indeed, for most of the last year or more.
Darin King offers no chance of changing that.
Here are some views of Moebius’ 1/72 scale USS Skipjack held together with green painter’s tape.
Skipjack was the first nuclear-powered hunter killer submarine using the teardrop hull design that optimised underwater performance. Skipjack and her sisters were the fastest submarines in the US Navy until the arrival of the Los Angeles class boats in the 1970s. They remained in front line service until they were decommissioned in 1990.
The navy rushed its first two ballistic missile submarines to sea by modifying the Skipjacks and redirecting some of the parts to what became the George Washington class. A cut in the hull, the addition of about an extra 130 feet, 16 missile tubes and some other structural changes and the Americans had a working launch platform. Unfortunately, they could be as noisy as hell.
Ambitious modellers could convert this kit to a George Washington. The easier conversion would be to build a GW after its conversion from a missile carrying submarine. The navy chopped out the missile sections and stuck the bow and stern back together. The end results as a Skipjack with the old fairing around the sail that led up to top of the missile section left in place.
The picture quality isn’t great but for those interested in these things, it will give a sense of the size of this kit.
The front of the box says the kit builds to 40 inches. The back of the box says 42 inches. The back is right. That’s a 48 inch level in the foreground and while you can’t see it clearly in this picture, the submarine will be 42 inches almost exactly from the tip of the bow to the point at the end of the five-bladed screw.
Here’s another view from the top:
The hull is split into four sections fore, aft, top, and bottom. The sections are bagged and wrapped in soft plastic to prevent scratches and dings in shipping. The entire kit is packed into a box 22 inches long. This facilitates shipping and helps to keep the costs down.
The surface detail is finely molded with slightly recessed lines. There is a waterline molded into the upper hull. This mars the finish toward the bow where it cross the upper sonar array but you can fix that with a skillful application of some putty. Fore and aft of the sail, you will find all the hatches marked, included the main access hatches as well as the ones covering the mooring cleats and bollards.
On the sail, most of the batches appear to be outlined, including the two main hatches that open onto the dive planes. These were used when in port as easy access to docks, as well as for observation and mounting armed watches (guards). None of the hatches are open so if anyone wants to do so, they’ll have to scratch build the interiors behind them.
The kit includes markings for all Skipjack-class submarines, including Scorpion.
Out of the box, the kit builds as a submarine in its launch configuration and paintjob. The two buoy hatches on the topsides are to be painted international orange. That isn’t correct for an operational submarine. you’ll have to do some research to decide how you want to paint your submarine. If you hunt around, you can find some very useful advice on weathering, especially for the anti-fouling red on the lower half of the hull.
The screw is the original five-bladed design. The Skipjacks received seven bladed screws during refits in the early to mid- 1970s in order to correct a noise problem. No biggie. If you build Skipjack from the box and change the paint scheme, you will get an historic ship from the time she sailed into Murmansk harbour and reputedly sat submerged a mere 30 or 40 metres off the end of a busy pier and watched goings-on in one of the old Soviet Union’s major naval bases.
-srbp-
