Surely there must be some aspect of the Muskrat Falls affair in
which there is evidence that the public interest mattered? Actually, no. So far,
the facts only show a myopic determination to get the project sanctioned. At the
Inquiry, even the fundamental integrity of Nalcor senior management is now
under scrutiny.
On the witness stand, Derek Owen confirmed email evidence that
Paul Harrington, MF Project Director, attempted to influence the conclusions of a process known as a Cold Eyes Review. The Independent Review Panel (IRP) struck for the purpose was chaired by Owen. It was an electrifying
moment to be sure, possibly in part because we may be witnessing how unfettered
executive privilege becomes empowered in an atmosphere of political bombast. The
Commission has not even been able to find government-prepared analysis of the
project. Former Premier Williams was asked by the Commissioner to help locate
the work.
Paul Harrington, MF Project Director, attempted to influence the conclusions of a process known as a Cold Eyes Review. The Independent Review Panel (IRP) struck for the purpose was chaired by Owen. It was an electrifying
moment to be sure, possibly in part because we may be witnessing how unfettered
executive privilege becomes empowered in an atmosphere of political bombast. The
Commission has not even been able to find government-prepared analysis of the
project. Former Premier Williams was asked by the Commissioner to help locate
the work.
The Harrington story is serious business.
 |
| Derek Owen ( Far Left Facing) |
The IRP Report included a number of recommendations, including
an expression of concern that the SNC-Lavalin and Nalcor Teams were not
“aligned”, Nalcor having taken the Engineering, Procurement, Construction and
Management (EPCM) Contract from SNC and put management of the project in the
hands of an “integrated team“. That there were personality clashes among Team
members, affecting performance, was clear. This titillating insight into how
early in the game SNC’s role was downgraded was overshadowed, however, by the
Report’s recommendations relating to contingency risk.
an expression of concern that the SNC-Lavalin and Nalcor Teams were not
“aligned”, Nalcor having taken the Engineering, Procurement, Construction and
Management (EPCM) Contract from SNC and put management of the project in the
hands of an “integrated team“. That there were personality clashes among Team
members, affecting performance, was clear. This titillating insight into how
early in the game SNC’s role was downgraded was overshadowed, however, by the
Report’s recommendations relating to contingency risk.
This is where Owen’s testimony got interesting.
Three days after
the Final Report was presented to CEO Ed Martin, Paul Harrington contacted Derek
Owen seeking changes. The IRP team had recommended that there be adequate cost
and schedule allowances included in the total project costs at sanction. He wanted
the word “recommendations” changed to “observations” and demanded that the specific phraseology
applied to the need for appropriate contingencies be watered down.
Three days after
the Final Report was presented to CEO Ed Martin, Paul Harrington contacted Derek
Owen seeking changes. The IRP team had recommended that there be adequate cost
and schedule allowances included in the total project costs at sanction. He wanted
the word “recommendations” changed to “observations” and demanded that the specific phraseology
applied to the need for appropriate contingencies be watered down.
Ultimately, Owen and another member of the IRP refused, stating
that such changes made after the fact would be contrary to their Charter and to
their professional ethics.
that such changes made after the fact would be contrary to their Charter and to
their professional ethics.
That the Project Director sought those changes not before — but
after — CEO Ed Martin had received the Report, sets off a huge alarm.
Harrington’s actions — whether at Ed Martin behest or not — calls into question
the very integrity of the entire senior management group, one that pulled out
every stop to keep the project going forward.
The arrogance demonstrated was even further magnified by Harrington’s email to Own in which he characterized the Report as a “Draft Report” when he would have known it was not.
after — CEO Ed Martin had received the Report, sets off a huge alarm.
Harrington’s actions — whether at Ed Martin behest or not — calls into question
the very integrity of the entire senior management group, one that pulled out
every stop to keep the project going forward.
The arrogance demonstrated was even further magnified by Harrington’s email to Own in which he characterized the Report as a “Draft Report” when he would have known it was not.
Why would Harrington want those changes made even after Ed Martin had
been presented with the IRP findings? Who would read the Report except senior
management, unless there were concerns, even then, that an Inquiry might
eventually start poking around?
been presented with the IRP findings? Who would read the Report except senior
management, unless there were concerns, even then, that an Inquiry might
eventually start poking around?
What Derek Owen was asked to address is not some vague allegation
by an ardent critic. Rather, his disclosures — actually the Commission’s — puts
on trial the very process by which a project like Muskrat achieves conviction
among official bodies and earns credibility (or derision) from the public.
by an ardent critic. Rather, his disclosures — actually the Commission’s — puts
on trial the very process by which a project like Muskrat achieves conviction
among official bodies and earns credibility (or derision) from the public.
Owen, like IRP Member John Mallam the previous day, explained
exactly why something now proven to be a debacle actually never ever passed the
“smell test”. The contingency allowances needed by any development — backyard
shed or megaproject — were not in evidence, and the IRP was compelled to note
the fact for thoroughness and so that the Gatekeeper — Ed Martin — was warned.
And that is exactly what they did.
exactly why something now proven to be a debacle actually never ever passed the
“smell test”. The contingency allowances needed by any development — backyard
shed or megaproject — were not in evidence, and the IRP was compelled to note
the fact for thoroughness and so that the Gatekeeper — Ed Martin — was warned.
And that is exactly what they did.
Bad enough that such things transpire in some private
sector offices; but must it go on in a nascent Crown Corporation where
braggadocio is the only asset on the balance sheet not encumbered by the
bondholders?
sector offices; but must it go on in a nascent Crown Corporation where
braggadocio is the only asset on the balance sheet not encumbered by the
bondholders?
What people need to take from this seemingly tawdry business
is that concepts of “energy warehouse” or notions of public interest are absent.
This is about attitude: a manifest sense of entitlement. It is about the
overarching belief of Harrington and others that they possess a right to meddle
even in an independent review process; one established, ostensibly, for the purpose
of assessing their performance as much as critical omissions from the project
costs and its readiness for sanction.
is that concepts of “energy warehouse” or notions of public interest are absent.
This is about attitude: a manifest sense of entitlement. It is about the
overarching belief of Harrington and others that they possess a right to meddle
even in an independent review process; one established, ostensibly, for the purpose
of assessing their performance as much as critical omissions from the project
costs and its readiness for sanction.
As important as any other issue is the fact that Harrington’s interference
telegraphs a message to all. The message is: as part of our strategy, we will
eliminate any opposition to this project.
telegraphs a message to all. The message is: as part of our strategy, we will
eliminate any opposition to this project.
And Nalcor didn’t brook opposition. They completely ignored or
belittled the views of the Joint Review Panel, the Public Utilities Board and,
now, the Cold Eyes Review. Then, too, the arguments of Vardy, Penney and others
were deemed invalid; Nalcor ignored all opposition to Muskrat.
belittled the views of the Joint Review Panel, the Public Utilities Board and,
now, the Cold Eyes Review. Then, too, the arguments of Vardy, Penney and others
were deemed invalid; Nalcor ignored all opposition to Muskrat.
There is a line by Al Pacino’s iconic character Michael
Corleone in the film The Godfather: Part
III which seems to suit the current circumstance. Modified with a plural
pronoun it would read: “They are beyond redemption.”
Corleone in the film The Godfather: Part
III which seems to suit the current circumstance. Modified with a plural
pronoun it would read: “They are beyond redemption.”
The changes Harrington sought found no correspondence with anything
related to duty; it was all about licence. For him, as for Martin and the
others, there are no bounds. There is only the belief that “I do what I want,
no rules apply to me.”
related to duty; it was all about licence. For him, as for Martin and the
others, there are no bounds. There is only the belief that “I do what I want,
no rules apply to me.”
Michael Corleone would have readily understood what Nalcor
stands for.
stands for.
Look at what Harrington was making per day. No wonder he wanted the project sanctioned.
This PAUL HARRINGTON individual is one of three senior Nalcor managers trying to use the courts to keep his salary a secret… a no doubt generous salary funded by NL taxpayers.
What is it about his NL-taxpayer-funded pay package that this PAUL HARRINGTON individual wants to keep hidden from public view??
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/muskrat-falls-contractors-supreme-court-pay-info-1.4775500
If anything at all comes out of this inquiry it's that Nalcor senior management responsible for MRF fiasco, such as this Harrington and his ilk, should be purged and the Nalcor monstrosity completely disassembled and sold off to the private sector.
not only P Harrington, but look at all the pay rates for all the "hired guns" or "Eds Buds" – all these folks, so called world experts that Ed brought over from his oil and gas days… many of these folks on $1500-3000 a day for the last TEN YEARS – yes every day including WEEKENDS . Of course to do this Ed fired all the long term Hydro senior staff first. There are no long term HYDRO experts left in Nalcor sr management. Ask Fred Martin or Maureen Green…
Is any of this a surprise? Not to anyone who did even a cursory review of the facts in the EIS.
This project was driven by the politics from the outset. Why is that a surprise now?
I wish a challenge to the ugly politics would finally break the feudal grip on NL life.
No Bruno and others, there are no surprises. A lot of people knew or suspected all of this, but without any way to prove it, or any evidance to back it up you would just be made a laughing stock by nalcor and the govt of the day. So it is only an inquiry like this can dig up the evidance. It is like this Saudi news reporter, we all, or most, except Trumpie, that he was murdered at the orders from the king and crown prince. Now you and I know that, but we can't prove it, we have to depend on the authorities to present the evidence, and it does not just flow out, it has to be extracted painfully, like pulling teeth. And then those at the top still deny it, because they think they have the God given right to decide what is right, and on top of that, they have their followers that will come hell or high water still support them. We are no different, just look at what happens on a daily basis in the USA, and they have the best media and democratic system every devised, and the scroundals still get away with it, all in the name of beyond redemption. Anyway UG you and I think exactly the same, but you are a much better writer than I am, and a make it as clear to the reader as the nose on your face, where as I say it in a way that only I and a few like minded people understand. Keep her going, as I am sure the learned judge understands it too. Hopefully these scroundals will be brought to justice for their crimes against society and our democratic system. They don't own us, and the law applies to all, not just those who are doing time in HMP, but to those at the top, and those who think they have a God given right to support a dictator. Cheers, average Joe.
Sorry Joe, you don't get it. It is a faux (fake) inquiry designed to protect the guilty and hide the facts.
15 rotten billion and counting!
Yes Bruno, it (the inquiry) is a waste of time and money. Those guilty will still receive big pay cheques and pensions laughing at us from Tampa, Fla. as we struggle to make ends meet up here. Move if you can!!!!
No most of us will remain poor as church mice and here in the North, and remain Large Levy Payers.
I am not sure it can be assumed that there will be no accountabilty resulting from this inquiry. If the evidence shows there was fraud completed, then I am not sure it can be ignored. Bad judgement is one thing, breaking the law is clearly another.
Does withholding relevant cost and schedule information constitute fraud? that is the question.
No charges possible, evidence can't be used by law enforcement, the spur issue excluded, the mercury issue swept aside, Astaldi and SNC Lavalin word class fraudsters central to the ongoing fraud, lowballing costs by 10 billion and still you wonder if this inquiry will hold anyone accountable?
Fat chance!
As a federal public servant, I often reviewed, analyzed, and pushed back on ill-conceived top-down policies/studies/requests, (e.g., https://www.thetelegram.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/letter-muskrat-falls-the-more-things-change-251905/ ).
I have refused to change an 'independent' report, pushed back on assignments where there were attempts (intentionally or otherwise) to prejudice an objective review of a controversial initiative, and did not support the award of a contract that I had judged to be a low-balling of a bid price (in effect, a form of contract splitting).
These were, I believed, to be key parts of my job/obligations to the public.
So there appears to be much blame here to go around.
What did the police say when you went to them about being asked to change an independent report?
I did not then, nor do I now, view it as a police matter.
I was not 'independent' in the sense of being a private citizen or consultant, but a subordinate employee who was asked to conduct a review and analysis of an existing management position and asked to prepare a report on my findings/observations,etc.
I was asked to make changes that I could not agree with, and the matter, as far as I could ascertain, ended there.
There was nothing, as far as I could see, illegal about the request. Merely an ethical and operational decision that I had to make — and I made it.
As to push back and consequences: I have mentioned before on UG
I presented to the PUB being critical about MFs,pre-sanction, and presented as to risk of space heating demand decline due to improved technology suitable for our climate. This made no impact to Nalcor nor Nfld Power, so if I had stopped there, no consequences.
Instead I continued later at the PUB, post sanction, and very critical of the relationship between the power companies and the Consumer Advocate, doing nothing meaningful for the consumer to help them reduce energy use. PUB legal councel warned me, before my presentation, that my language was borderline acceptable, but they did not change it. Power company officials nor the CA objected when I made the presentation. Yet within 24 or 48 hrs a summons was being drafted that I appear in court on an old unrelated matter.
That court preceding falsely stated I was insolvent, falsely stated that I had filed another action against their client (this by them doing a computer search and confusing another Winston Adams with me), and most interesting, to discredit me further, they filed a copy of my 8 or 10 presentation to the PUB, the one pre MF sanction.
Perhaps the law firm that did that might indicate a trail to their motive. I was amazed to see the summons drafted immediately after my second PUB presentation, and they then use my first one to try to discredit me. So I was side tracked on MFs issues for a long time, they had effectively tied me in knots, legally speaking.
Winston Adams
I wonder where that was conceived as the way to discredit you!
Any idea Winston??
The whole project from conception to implementation smells to the high heavens. If the inquiry fails to identify the scullduggery that went on and to set the stage for a criminal investigation, even the inquiry won't pass the smell test. I can't see Justice LeBlanc putting his reputation on the line so as to protect those who we know are the culprits in this devastating fiasco.
As to where it was conceived, I recall several years ago that maybe on this blog it was suggested that Nalcor kept a "list of critics". Now we find out that Dawn Dalley formulated a strategy to deal with protesters and critics(some 300 pages, I have not read it) and also anti Quebec to get locals and the BOT on board with MFs. And Pam at the Telegram says Dunderdale made a 180 to discontinue promoting the merits of MFs but seem to whole heartedly endorse the PR Plan. The law firm who issued the summons may be an important clue, that they would so well know my questioning the merits of MFs in a formal way.
Winston
The CA has been useless at best Winston! That sleazy pressure on critics I understand well having been sued by one DW. CA's that don't advocate is a large part of the problem in NL.
Too few people challenge the tight feudal grip on the throats of critics. The CA, sadly, is part of the democratic failure in NL.
It is the sleaze that will not ease! Keep soldiering on Winston!
Yes Winston, no doubt nalcor was behind any critizem of it's project and to tie you up in knots to shut you up. This is how some of the public would receive it. Now, seems Tood got himself tied up too today, in talking out of both sides of his mouth. Which version is true, I guess will be left to the commissioner. But terms like runaway train, tail waging the dog, cheerleaders, and fiefdom, we're all very descriptive words to describe nalcor, and its dealings with the premier's office and other govt departments, especially natural resources, the department that was or should have been responsible for nalcor. Now you all know, long term readers of this blog, that I used the terms, creating a monoster by govt called Frankenstein, turning it loose and it became greater than it creator. Was not responsible to anyone, not even itself. And I never worked for govt or anyone I know, but you just had to follow, the way things were going at the time. When the minister of natural resources, that you would assume was the direct boss over nalcor, said publically that he had not read a report, think it was the JPR report, and didn't need to read it as nalcor did, and that was ok for him. Yes the tail wagging the dog says Joe blow.
Everybody! If the personal gains (if they could be found; take a guess) were added up what portion of 12 billion would it be? Let us all look carefully at the “billions” word we toss around so easily. IT IS 1000 million!! We say it so casually now. MF IS 12,000 millions!! Or more!! We have all heard 15,000 millions. The universe is 14,000 millions years old. 12G can’t ever be paid down. It must be forgiven or traded. Reminds me of Esau. Pottage, anyone? Have a nice piece of birch bark with your tea, my son. Go here for a refresher
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,000,000,000
No-one is minimizing how gross squandering thousands of millions is. Lots of thousand of millions in fact!
Can you see the future of NL pissed away by this ill conceived and unneeded MF debacle? How long will it take to count off the millions (15 thousand of them at least) wasted at MF?
Sobering is it not? Who will be held to account? The critics that warned of the impending disaster back as far as 2011? No one else so far.
Why the fear to challenge the naked emperor? Will the truth be forever obscured like the outcome of the 1949 referendum?
Leblanc and Learmonth has today helped move this inquiry in the right direction.
Witness Todd Stanley seemed to be backtracking on the under-oath testimony he gave back in August.
However, co-counsel Learmonth would have none of it (and rightly so, it seems to me).
And Stanley's apparent backtracking seems to perhaps point toward some unseen influence as to what is said, when it is said, how it is said and for what purpose.
Did Paul Harrington's consulting company (the one he went to court to stop Nalcor releasing financial information about) end up providing the "senior project management personnel" that SNC was, apparently, unable to provide? Even though SNC has 50,000 employees worldwide? Surely the "integrated team" wasn't just a way to get Erimus to provide personnel for the last 10 years? It couldn't be that simple, could it? (https://erimusconsulting.squarespace.com/).
And a little light Googling also quickly takes you to the website of NSB Offshore, who also provide technical personnel to projects. Did they also supply personnel to Muskrat Falls? Guess whose son is the Operations Manager there? LOL! Could not believe it! Where are our investigative reporters? Have they all left the province? You don't have to be Einstein to see there's something not right here.
But not only is this PAUL HARRINGTON individual so intent on keeping his taxpayer-funded Nalcor pay package a secret from the very taxpayers who're funding it that he went to court to block the release of the info… he also wanted to keep the name of his consulting company secret too. Now, why is that??
Here it is…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/nalcor-compensation-supreme-court-applications-1.4830359
https://opencorporates.com/companies/ca_nl/55572
VALIDATED! See a chart within a UG blog posting on Monday January 23, 2017 (link below). The chart labelled Appendix E midway down the post shows 233 recruitment hires between 2011 and 2015… and yup, you guessed it… NSB Energy was a player. AND with the lion's share of 83 (up to 2015). I bet work was discussed over a few Sunday dinners.
http://unclegnarley.blogspot.com/2017/01/is-nalcor-rife-with-conflicts-of.html
dm
More…
https://opencorporates.com/companies/ca_nl/77558
https://opencorporates.com/companies/ca_nl/69345
Like I said before… as thick as thieves they are.
As thick as thieves…
Nice 'hood…
https://www.google.ca/maps/@47.6120105,-52.696842,3a,60y,303.1h,87.16t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipO5YSIWC_xbznksHlxt1PVtx71M_5tcwK4FIVog!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipO5YSIWC_xbznksHlxt1PVtx71M_5tcwK4FIVog%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi2.1750634-ya59.947956-ro0.91139215-fo100!7i7680!8i3840?hl=en
This Tanya Power individual was also associated with an outfit called "HVdc Specialties".
The search utility in the pdf appears to be disabled, Power's name is listed in the table in Appendix B, page 17.
https://www.gov.nl.ca/mfoversight/pdf/EYCostScheduleReview_Full.pdf
Wow. Some simple math really shows a possible motivation for trying to hide Erimus from public scrutiny. Assume the base wage for a senior contractor is $120 an hour (this is low for megaprojects, actually). Typically, a personnel-sourcing company like Erimus will have low overhead costs (i.e., they have no head office to pay for, etc.) and their fee (markup) on a person they provide could be between 20% to 75%, depending on the role.
Assume a 30% markup, which is on the low end. A $120 per hour contractor would then be marked up by $36 per hour (total bill to Nalcor, for example, of $156 per hour). Not out of line at all with senior project professionals and, in fact, on the low side.
Now assume the contractor works 1600 hours in a year. That might sound like a lot, but remember that a salaried employee with four-weeks vacation and all the stat holidays will work over 1800 hours a year, so 1600 hours is pretty light. Therefore, a company like Erimus would easily generate 1600 x $36 = $57,600 a year in margin on that contractor. Not too bad, even if they are offering a health benefits plan, etc., to that contractor, which might cost $500 a month.
Now, suppose your little company was lucky enough to supply a dozen senior people to a five-year long megaproject. Over that time, your little company would generate:
12 people x 5 years x 1600 hours per year x $36 per hour = $3,456,000.
Yes, $3.5 Million. And if that dozen people was actually 15 people, and for 10 years instead of 5 years, and for 1800 hours per year instead of 1600? Now it's $10 Million. That's pretty good for a little company with no physical office address that provides personnel of a calibre that, somehow, SNC was not able to provide.
And what if a Director/Owner of your little company was also Second-in-Command of that same mega-project for the past ten years? And is also responsible for handpicking senior personnel? Well, if that happens to be true, it's probably something you don't want the public to find out.
TODD STANLEY: A slippery character.
In a prior sworn deposition he he said Nalcor was a train wreck , that Nalcor thought the Dept of Natural Resources should act as a cheerleader for Nalcor, that Nalcor was a joke, using Power Point, which is a very sketchy on details whereas lawyers use word perfect, very descriptive language.
But today, also sworn testimony, that every thing done by Nalcor was done by the book. And so Bern Coffee, and Harold Smith, Fitzgerald, and Dunderdale 's lawyer, all took turns and got Todd to say how professional their clients were. No train wreck. Nothing to joke about. No cheer leading. A complete reversal, and both swon to be true. Bern Coffee even used the line" thetruth , the whole truth, nothing but the truth" and Todd swore to that.
Barry Learmont wasn't having it . For the first time we saw someone at this Inquiry tired of the lies being told, and thenset about to expose those inconsistent statements. It goes to his credibility, he told Leblanc, and Leblanc gave him leeway. And then Todd's lawyer wanted to keep his prior deposition out of the record. Leblanc wasn't having that either. Poor Harold Smith, Ed martin's lawyer, looked dejected . Indeed , when Leblanc asked all the lawyers if they objected to the deposition being entered into evidence , not one did.
Haven't seen Tommie or Ed Martin there lately.
This Inquiry seems to have taken a turn. Now, if only Kate showed the spirit of Barry, to expose these scallywags.
Todd said Kennedy was a real pusher to get facts and details from Nalcor. How come I remember Kennedy in the House telling how we would get not 10 cents, not 50 cents, but one dollar per kwh for power sales into the USA. Yes sir. He really got the facts from Nalcor. Kennedy's 1 dollar per kwh is in Hansard, if memory serves.
Todd confirmed that Charles Bown was in on most meetings with Ed Martin and the Premier. Bown is the guy , the Deputy minister of Natural Resources,who could have ordered Directives for power demand reduction, if he had the interests of ratepayers at heart. Maybe he was like the Tin Man, no heart, so just a Nalcor cheerleader.
Salute to Barry today. Now if statements are inconsistent, are they lies? And is lies under oath perjury? Is it an ethics problem ? Todd is a lawyer, will be able to practice?
Winston Adams
Interestingly, Todd noted the difference between Danny and Cathy was Danny would ask lots of questions in presentations… Danny obviously didn't ask about P factors… he didn't know if they were fit to eat. Danny, that's world-class incompetence. Count your stars the cable gig paid off for you. Bring on much more incompetence and fraudulence.
dm
dm – perhaps it's mere coincidence that the current chair of the nalcor BOD is also a cable guy. Maybe a more accomplished one but it just seems odd.
Of the 11 person board, several have oil industry experience but only 1 has any electric utility background, Stan Marshall. When electricity topics come up, does he just talk to himself? Who can challenge the CEO? While there may be more people on the board today, the quality doesn't seem to be there where we need it most. Governance in the Dwight Ball era doesn't seem to look a lot better at all.
I would like to point out, for followers of this blog, to recognize,to this point, in phase 1 of CIMFP that we have heard from 2 expert witnesses so far. The first spoke to mega projects and cost. The second spoke to the historical background relating to Labrador Churchill River developments. Both were germane to the TOR as determined by the Commission. Tomorrow, Dr. Guy Holmein speaks to policy and government, as I understand it. It is very broad (read his cv) but the background seems to have been wisely chosen by the Commission. Let’s stay attuned to this, as it may well be a pre-cursor to phase 3 in June, 2019, as regards to systemic issues and policy going forward, as per the TOR. We are not able to change the past but the Inquiry may be influential considerably in changing the future direction of energy policy in NL going forward. FLW
The future of energy policy in NL cannot credibly be developed until the instigators and enablers of the MRF debacle, such as the likes of this bloody Harrington and his ilk, are purged from the system and Nalcor itself is dissolved and its bloody "world-class" experts disbanded.
Yes, maybe an enforced carbon tax and doubled power rate will bring NL back to the "path not taken" in the 80's.
Holburn must be a student of the Adams' school of cost engineering. Danny and the cable guys qualified for the Kindergarten entry level.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Out of their depths… most definitely. But lets acknowledge that they went to tremendous lengths and against so much warning that they must own this mess. If nothing else comes of it, Ed and Cathy cannot now say they did not know the risks and play the 'at the time' card. And it's just of my personal opinion, Danny knew about the risk too though he has denied it. For him to leverage that Quebec was a huge impediment but still proceeded knowing that the WMA was not in place either speaks of stupidity, world-class incompetence or wilful deceit to the public. You'd think a lawyer and leader (using loosely) would have known better.
dm
Don't you just love the current discussion on "Best Practices". Danny and the "Juniors" didn't understand that Adams' speak, (CDM), was closer to the mark. Has anyone in NL ever heard of Pembina and Ecology Action?
I doubt very much that Justice LeBlanc will have any truck with the "best-information-available-at-the-time" BS from these perpetrators. When he writes up his final report I expect that will factor into as much as the old "dog-ate-my-homework" excuse.
From what's coming out of this inquiry so far, it's beginning to appear that a primary motivation for the conspicuously reckless and tunnel-vision rush to sanction the MRF debacle was that it would ultimately serve as an indirect means for the MRF cabal to get at NL's oil royalties with the intent for self-enrichment… and this at the expense of paying down the provincial debt and badly-needed funding the health and education.
How vile is that at all?
Today's testimony at the CIMFP by Dr. Guy Holburn constitutes a damning indictment of the Dunderdale government's injudicious and reckless decision to exclude the PUB from conducting an independent review of a project that has since devolved into an horrendously monumental fiasco.
Very much looking forward to the spectacle of Dunderdale squirming under the grilling she's in for at the CIMFP as to her government's fiscally disastrous actions… it'll be an early Xmas present from Santa.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/no-apologies-for-pub-exemption-dunderdale-1.1017720
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/muskrat-folly
Think about this; In future, people like Dr. Holburn can do forward project analysis, using Muskrat as a basis of what can go horribly wrong!!
Surprise! NL has a carbon reduction plan after all;
Includes this;
The government also pointed to the Muskrat Falls project, saying that renewable electricity consumed in the province will reach 98 per cent when the hydro project reaches full power.
Exemptions look interesting, but what pollution penalty, (carbon tax), will the power company pay on oil fired generation?
They're taking 4-cents (4.00-cents) off gasoline and replacing it with 4.42-cent carbon tax. Coady and Osbourne doing cart wheels at Confederation Building relishing the coup on the Feds. If Ball utters the words "i got rid of the 4 cents gasoline tax" in the next campaign i will lose my supper over the table.
Earlier internal drafts of the carbon tax design last spring were approximately 10 cents / liter depending on the fuel.
Let me know if i'm out to lunch on this but i think the reason for Muskrat was to give Que. the finger (obviously) and the safety net for doing so was "we have oil", and if it went billions over budget as they may have expected, No Biggie, by 2019, the price of oil should be about $300/barrel (by then) and cut the cheque to subsidize it.
I still remember when DW said he would fund the Arts to make up the difference after Harper said he would pull back funding for such "elite" activity. I remember saying, this guy is getting a little too cocky.
Yes,the aim was to give Quebec the finger but instead he gave us the shaft.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Need some help here as to load forecasting. Back in the 70’s, we were not too sophisticated, like today requires. We largely used a look back as to predicting what was in front of us. That was before computers, spreadsheets, databases, and a myriad of predictive programs. So, today’s tools, including before pre-sanction of MF, should have been able to include demographics, etc. In NL, the population is ageing. Obituaries show that seniors are passing in institution, care homes and places like Tiffany and Pleasantville, etc. Most of these institutions are apartment type living with newer ones having a concrete mass. So, most of the heat loss is on the building envelop which is much less than single family dwellings, for equivalent occupancy. Did CIMFP do an adequate examination of how load forecasting is done, vis-a-vis province demographics? Perhaps not. Furthermore, NL Power probably have a larger handle on domestic load forecast provisions, than do Nalcor. Rather than paying twice for this aspect of utility costs, perhaps it is time to consider again that only one utility entity (either private or public) is appropriate for NL (the second smallest utility in Canada, next to PEI, when you discount Upper Churchill that has virtually no value in context to serving NL). FLW
"…time to consider again that only one utility entity (either private or public) is appropriate for NL (the second smallest utility in Canada)…"
Definitely a burden & inefficient to run small utilities.
How about a joint-venture with Emera to achieve better economy of scale?
Or better, just sell the whole thing (production, distribution and retail) to HQ at market value, with rate protection etc.
And possibly include NS so to replace even more thermal GS / allow HQ selling more of its surplus. (All Heracles ideas here)
Anything would be better than having these blasted NL politicians and their bloody appointed Nalcor cronies involved in it… look at the ridiculous mess that crowd of imbeciles and culprits have made of it.
At least HQ knows how to go about the hydro-electricity business without bankrupting Quebec.
Fred, it seems vital that the Commission obtain an expert to critique Nalcor's load forecast and to produce an accurate set of forecasts that reflect probable opportunities for CDM, and probable elasticity response to rate shock.
Agree. FLW
In my 20 Oct. 2018 Weekend Telegram letter "Muskrat Falls … the more things change" [ https://www.thetelegram.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/letter-muskrat-falls-the-more-things-change-251905/ ], I stated, in part:
QUOTE
I would suggest that as far back as 1984 the principles that underlay Integrated Resource Planning existed and were espoused in the N.L. Region’s Coast Guard “rational project planning” philosophy. They are not new. The two are virtually identical. They were in use at the time. They were knowable at the time.
Accordingly, I would submit that it was not reasonable for the government of the day and Nalcor to use a 20th-century linear planning approach, limited-options analyses, 50-year forecasts, escalating supply price assumptions and both cumulative present worth cost comparisons and cost of service methods to determine and meet the island’s energy needs.
UNQUOTE
I note that lawyer Bern Coffey this morning put forward the premise that IRP was not a readily known planning process until recent years.
The issue was further raised by the legal representative for the Consumer Advocate and it seems that the expert witness agreed that within the Muskrat Falls planning time period, IRP would have been in use in other jurisdictions .
Seems an important point as to the 'reasonableness' of not using an IRP approach, and whether IRP methodology was 'known at the time'.
IPR especially includes DSM (Demand Side Management) which is reducing demand instead of just adding new generation assets, and that CDM (Conservation demand management) is a critical part of that, and the use of Energy Efficiency Corporations at arms length from the power companies.
Is it new, as Bern Coffee suggests?
I suggest it was started in California 30 years ago,got popular in the USA North East 20 years ago, especilly Vermont, So Dunderdale attending the Governors Conferences was very familiar with what they were doing. Then NS going big into CDM in 2008, 4 years before MF sanction, and other provinces also. SO sure, this is really new. And Vision 2041 carries my 3 piece write up on that in 2012, prior to sanction. The Telegram published it in OCt/NOv 2012.
The concept, was just too new for the world class experts at Nalcor, especially Stratton and Bennett to understand it or know about it.
Winston Adams
Current testimony at the CIMFP indicates the Nalcor monstrosity's apparent attempts to stall and stonewall the PUB so as to avoid oversight by an outside party representing the interests of ratepayers.
The Nalcor monstrosity has long-since gone rogue… no longer beholden even to the political Frankensteins who created it, let alone the NL taxpayers who sustain it.
If anything at all comes out of this inquiry it's that the Nalcor monstrosity must be dismantled/privatized, and its so-called "world-class" experts purged/disbanded.
"And according to notes submitted into evidence by former board chairman Andy Wells, Dunderdale phoned Wells at one point and said, "I'm sick of you and your damn board."
And rest assured Dunderdale, NLers are sick of you and your damned "world-class" Nalcor experts.
Very much looking forward to the spectacle of Dunderdale squirming under the grilling she's in for at the CIMFP as to her government's dismissal of the PUB and consequent fiscally disastrous actions… it'll be an early Xmas present from Santa.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/muskrat-review-maureen-greene-1.4876772
FRED MARTIN; an ex-Nfld hydro engineer (to testify tomorrow) and then with the PUB during the Reference about MFs. Todays proceedings showed some correspondence. One that caught my eye was Fred seemed to expect Nalcor to supply details of their analysis of gas turbines and wind energy, as one of the alternatives to be assessed. This is an important part of a least cost option combined with island small hydro additions and CDM for demand reductions.
I look forward to Fred's testimony tomorrow. Fred and I graduated at the same year and I worked with him at Nfld Hydro . A good technical guy. He likely had lots of concern with Nalcor forecasting as well.
Winston Adams
Appreciate today’s responses. Here’s another couple. Need help on these. 1. Can some expert witness tell us if it’s fair to do the option period as 50 years? 2018-67, I believe; pinned to a belief that MF had a life of 50 years, at least on capital cost. Perhaps, in comparion, then, O&M costs should be shown as well. So, for CPW analysis, is that approach per say appropriate? And, what about sensitivity analysis, e.g. is 50 years the right period? What about if it were only taken as 30 years? Anybody out there have a 50 year mortgage on their home? 2. Back to load forecasting and sensitivies. How would have the options panned out if a 1% forecast was considered on the back end instead of 2%? FLW
Fred, you might consider the Ontario market where 20 year generation contracts was the norm. They did a lot of them.