Post by Muskrat Falls Concerned Citizens Coalition Members David Vardy, Ron Penney and Des Sullivan

that the second phase of the Inquiry has begun it may be helpful to take stock
of where we are and what we have learned to date. 

Here are fifteen key issues on
which the Inquiry Commissioner, Richard LeBlanc, must opine and about which the
public should be informed. We have not attempted to assign priorities to them
but we can say they that, while they are important, there are others issues that have been identified. We will
post them another time.

1.         When the Muskrat Falls project was
sanctioned there was only a three per cent probability that the project would
be completed on time, based on evidence provided by Nalcor’s risk consultant
Richard Westney.

2.         The joint environmental panel recommended
that the availability of Churchill Falls power in 2041 should be central in the
province’s energy planning. The evidence is that Nalcor did not include the
2041 option in its planning, nor did they include the prospect of buying power
from Quebec on an interim basis to bridge from the present to 2041.

3.         Muskrat Falls was sanctioned without
the federal loan guarantee, whose completion took place at “financial close”,
November 29, 2013, almost a year after project sanction by the province on
December 17, 2013. In addition, it occurred only after Nalcor offered to supply
Nova Scotia with additional power as demanded by the Utilities and Review Board
of Nova Scotia. The federal loan guarantee depended upon sanctioning by Nova
Scotia which in turn was contingent upon UARB approval, given on November 29,
2013. It is worthy of note that the “Limited Notice to Proceed” (LNP) issued to
Astaldi took place on the date of Financial Close, namely November 29, 2013 –
which illuminates Nalcor’s lack of concern for the risks the project held for
the province (see #4 below).

4.         Before financial close Grant Thornton
reported that bids for Muskrat Falls construction work were coming in 25%
higher than DG3 estimates. Yet there was no indication that this information
prompted reconsideration of the sanction decision before financial close took
place and before committing the province to an irrevocable commitment to finish
the project regardless of cost. In addition Nalcor did not communicate this
information on major cost overruns which could have led to reconsideration of
the sanction decision. The Minister of Natural Resources at the time, Derrick
Dalley, said he was not informed of the overruns.

5.         No oversight was put in place to
trigger a reconsideration of the sanction decision on the basis of early cost
overruns nor was there consideration of entering conditional contracts for all
major components before sanction or financial close in order to increase the
level of certainty of costs and reduce risk. There is evidence that Nalcor had
been advised to adopt the practice of finalizing bids and securing firm cost
information from contracts before committing the province to providing a
guarantee that the province would supply sufficient equity to complete the
project whatever the cost may be, known as a “completion guarantee”. This
matter was raised by MFCCC counsel when questioning Nalcor witness Pat Hussey.

6.         Grant Thornton concluded that their “findings
and observations indicate a potential understatement of costs at the time of
sanctioning of the Interconnected Island Option (Muskrat Falls Project) which
in turn would understate the CPW of this option.” (The CPW or Cumulative
Present Worth is a metric used to compare the two options on a present value

7.         Nalcor spent over $140 million on the
proposed Gull Island Hydro project prior to Muskrat Falls Sanction. This is a
huge investment on a project which had not been sanctioned by government and is
indicative of the determination of the government of the day to build a project
on the Lower Churchill, with or without a viable business case.

8.         The testimony from the Inquiry
indicates that government was determined to build a Lower Churchill project.
The shift from Gull Island to Muskrat Falls took place just before the Term
Sheet announced on November 18, 2010 when Nalcor and government concluded that
the Gull Island project was not ready for sanction. At that time the focus
shifted from the export of Gull power to the use of Muskrat Falls power for use
on the Island and to replace the thermal plant at Holyrood. In short, the
evidence suggests that the option having the lower financial risk to the
province (the Isolated Island option comprised of small hydro, wind and
thermal) was never seriously considered.

9.         Despite Nalcor’s prediction that rates
would rise even if costs remained at the DG3 level of $7.4 billion (including
financing cost) and despite declining population Nalcor predicted that demand
would rise by 60% over 50 years. Nalcor has now dramatically reduced its
forecast of load growth. Without load growth it will be impossible for Nalcor
to recover the capital cost of Muskrat Falls. Grant Thornton reported that the
load forecast used in the sanctioning decision may have been overstated. They
went on to say “In addition, an overstatement in load forecast may impact the
decision of the need and/or timing of adding generation sources.”

10.       The revenue requirements for Muskrat
Falls will greatly exceed estimated revenues, which may actually decline rather
than increase. Nalcor had wrongfully assumed that demand was highly inelastic
to rate changes.

11.        When Muskrat Falls comes on stream the
cost of our electrical system will rival the cost of education, including
primary, secondary and post-secondary education. The annual cost of our power
system will rise from $800 to $1.6 billion.

12.       Nalcor is using a system of accounting
which shifts the return on equity into the distant future and thereby
understates revenue requirements in early years. In the early years, even
without “rate mitigation”, the province will be heavily subsidizing the cost of
electric power. The prospect of future recovery of these subsidies is remote
without significant load growth. The unorthodox methodology adopted by Nalcor
was intended to reduce “rate shock” but it has the effect of shifting both cost
and risk to the province and understating the cost of the project.

13.       The joint environmental panel called for
an independent financial review of the project. This review never happened. The
federal government was warned by concerned citizens that they should not give a
guarantee without an independent financial review. The 2012 review by the PUB
was based on inadequate engineering design because they had access only to the
DG2 cost estimates, which were based on less than 10% of the engineering design
being completed. The PUB was denied access to the DG3 cost estimates which it
needed to provide the advice requested by government. MHI was retained by
government to review the DG3 estimates but they were denied access to the risk
report prepared by Westney and did not review the business case of the project
or its financial viability.

14.       Manitoba Hydro International (MHI)
admitted they had no mandate to review the business case for Muskrat Falls.
Evidence given at the Inquiry confirmed that a senior bureaucrat in the
Department of Natural Resources revised the drafts MHI Report leading
Commission Counsel, Barry Learmonth, to suggest that the language was
“watered down”. The “tone is much milder” he said. The
existence of a $500 million strategic reserve was also not disclosed to MHI
either.  The MHI Report played a key role
in the Government’s public justification for Sanction of the project.

15.       Neither the province nor the federal
government had an independent review available to them either before provincial
sanction or financial close, which took place a year later.

David Vardy
Ron Penney
Des Sullivan


Bill left public life shortly after the signing of the Atlantic Accord and became a member of the Court of Appeal until his retirement in 2003. During his time on the court he was involved in a number of successful appeals which overturned wrongful convictions, for which he was recognized by Innocence Canada. Bill had a special place in his heart for the underdog.

Churchill Falls Explainer (Coles Notes version)

If CFLCo is required to maximize its profit, then CFLCo should sell its electricity to the highest bidder(s) on the most advantageous terms available.


This is the most important set of negotiations we have engaged in since the Atlantic Accord and Hibernia. Despite being a small jurisdiction we proved to be smart and nimble enough to negotiate good deals on both. They have stood the test of time and have resulted in billions of dollars in royalties and created an industry which represents over a quarter of our economy. Will we prove to be smart and nimble enough to do the same with the Upper Churchill?


  1. Excellent synopsis of willful disregard of reality and common sense. But, we are still without a way out. Dwight and Ches can each say they have a plan, but where are they? How can we vote based on trust something will be done, eventually. And, if their plans are based on oil money they are as bankrupt of reality as was NALCOR as described in your article.

    Time to despair, tend our garments, cover ourselves in ashes. The arse is out.

    • Keep in mind the "Rule of Law". The limited terms Inquiry just confirmed what largely was already known, albeit the degree of malfeasance is disturbing. The Concerned Citizens Coalition held the feet to the fire through the excellent leadership, and one Geoff Budden. Thank you all. Our children now have the responsibility to make life better for their own from our own generational sins. Shadow Inquiry people, thank you for your participation in these important discussions. Tor, though I mistook you, a 'Wegion', as a Newfoundlander, I believe you are one of us at heart:-)

  2. Item 8: "evidence suggests that the Isolated option of small hydro, wind and thermal was never seriously considered" And of course, DSM (Demand Side Management including Conservation and customer energy efficiency) was not considered at alll for the Isolated option mix. This was an opportunity to potentially reduce island winter peak demand from residential alone of over 300MW, with replacement of baseboard heat by efficient cold climate HP systems,(plus other measures) now being considered by Synapse as to permit electrification potential.
    I suggest this 4 prong approach would have cost no more that 2 billion dollars and kept customer energy bills stable, with reduced energy use.
    Winston Adams

  3. Well, we have to call a spade a spade, and lay the blame on whose watch all or most of those bunglings occurred. Cathy Dunderdale, and Ed Martin. KD is not on the list of witness of phase II of the inquiry. EM is before the inquiry for 2 days. Phase III has only 10 days. Who will be scheduled for these short 10 days in July??? Where will the buck stop? Will anyone be really held to account?? Will DW be called again, ask Joe blow??

    • The schedule for phase III indicates July 16 to July 26, 2019. It does not sit Saturday and Sunday, so that makes 9 days, which I called 10 short days, or one day short of 10. I can find no list of witness for Phase III, if they are available please inform. So peng2, I will leave it up to you to correct the other several mistakes, and post them please. Thanks, average Joe.

    • AJ @ 11:59:

      DW wasn't around after sanction – so he probably wont offer testimony. There was some changes in the KD dates of appearing – it is possible there might still be changes, maybe.

      The missing piece of P2 witness is PD – he was premier for the period when the train most likely crashed and he isn't there, an oversight maybe?


    • Peng2, still waiting for correction of several mistakes in my post @08:58. But in a meantime I will continue on, mainly for your general education. When I looked at the dates for phase III it indicates July 16 to July 26, 2019. So I looked at in terms of a forthnight. Or a two week period, the working days would then be 10 days, or less one day, which is 9 days. People have traditionally worked 12 days in a forthnight, with Sunday's being a day of rest. Of course now most people work 10 days in a forthnight. While others may work fourteen days out of fourteen days or a forthnight. Then they may have time off for an equal period of time, or there are many variations. The normal pay period is 14 days, or biweekly. We normally pay our mortgages biweekly, or every 14 days or forthnight. So the inquiry has scheduled 9 days of work in a forthnight. But my real point to you is, you are quick to point out a person's mistake or error, and move on. Was it not just as simple to say, Joe, you made a mistake, KD is on the stand on April 1st, along with Tom Marshall. And I would have said thank you for the correction. But in a meantime I am still awaiting for your correction of several errors in my comment. You tell me to keep up with media releases, I tell you to keep up with terminology old and new, as a forthnight is still a common term in my daily language. Cheers, Joe blow.

    • Christ gentlemen, The costs were understated, the demand overstated, the demand inelastic fallacy, no promised independent review, are questions that were answered long ago!

      When will you point your cannons on the emperor on the hill or will you continue to pretend that the neutering of the PUB, JRP and this "inquiry" for that matter are not just a smokescreen for a democracy destroyed and a feudal overlord smirking at a disempowered populace.

      When will the "intelligentsia" act to rescue a once proud culture? Or will the deception that began with the shady actions around the vote for confederation end with whimpering submission to a megalomaniacal emperor?

  4. Half or more of these points (and some in much more direct/certain language, and many before and during the PUB review), as well many more key issues, have been raised and in the public domain at least since 2011.

    It bothers me that Leblanc has said (paraphrased) that the purpose of the inquiry is "to tell a story".

    Well, I (and many others) have known the story for a long, long time and have done the best we can to inform/enlighten our fellow citizens.

    We are long past the need of having someone "tell us a story" (I left that behind in Grade 1.).

    If that is what this inquiry is about (or even mostly about), then it is part of the problem (and a part that has been 'engineered' — not by the former PC emperor, but by the current one.

    To a large degree, the inquiry is in danger of becoming part of a political public relations playbook (and which party is writing/editing the book doesn't matter).

  5. This Inquiry:
    1. Its limited and restricted Terms of Reference.
    2. Its set up;
    An overview by an expert to suggest most all mega hydro projects go big on cost overruns and behind schedules, due to what …..biases. So from the get go, an out that this event is not that unusual. Hydro Quebec's consistent on time and on budget of mega hydro projects was not included in the list by that expert.
    3. Then the next expert to say that the long thorny relationship with Quebec gave Nfld little choice but go this route.
    4. The Stan Marshall appearance: no questions could be asked, his was just a propaganda piece to bring awe to the audience, the size and scope and complexity intended to impress. Stan the Man explaining the complex to the simple folk, complex as justification for the delays and overruns, that only he could fix. Meanwhile the errors of Ed Martin will be exposed.
    5. The gentle approach of questions to the sleeveens that, by hook and by CROOK, have put this province on the edge of bankruptcy. The like of Ed Martin running the show, as even Leblanc had to acknowledge. Martin telling the Inquiry counsel when to proceed or not. An on going horror story of incompetence, unethical behaviour , and convenient poor memory and little written notes or records, taken in stride as if this is business as usual, not shocking. Far from criminal…….
    6. The rights of indigneous people and their safety, a mere side show.
    7. Dozens of parasite lawyers raking in big fees, but not a serious question to ask as to the blunders, but merely to assure protection of the guilty.
    8. Proper, lowest cost and reliable power alternates not be be addressed by this Inquiry, least the full scope of the fiasco be exposed to the pubic. So, permit the final argument that actions were reasonable…. with the knowledge and information at the time of the decisions….a get out of jail free approach, ….just biases, as explained by the first expert witness.
    7. Finish up with Stan the Man, finally questioned, and able to boast what has been since achieved, under his watch,that the train is now on tract…….almost there,…. and mitigation on the horizon. A finale, wit Marshall getting high praise form Leblanc, the tone already set by his praise for Cahill yesterday. Reliability and rotating outages to come …..that will be after Leblanc'S Inquiry, prompting perhaps yet another Inquiry.
    Yes , Bruno , the making of a farce. Sometimes exposures of evidence almost convinces one that this Inquiry has real teeth, that the Commissioner intends to call a space a spade,…..but that may cause a revolt of citizens for real change and accountability. Better to not do the real deep dive …..leave an escape hatch for the guilty. To have the pot stirred too much, that is not the Nfld way of doing things. In 50 years, evidence that was not make public will come to light. That is how to avoid accountability.,,,and preserve order and peace.

  6. Co-counsel is affirming with today's witness that risks should be quantified and included as part of the contingency amounts.

    What quantification factor (if any) was assigned to the risk of load forecast error?

    Also, given that MHI confirmed (but did not quantify) that load forecast risk was "FURTHER magnified" due to the length (50+ years) of the load forecast/CPW cost comparison period, did Nalcor quantify that risk? If so, what contingency amount was included for that risk?

    If not quantified and not costed for contingency purposes, why not?

    If not, why has co-counsel not put that issue to Nalcor witnesses and to various experts?

  7. #16 Why proceed without a water management agreement (WMA). The WMA was in court and Quebec Hydro prevailed with the rights of when to release water from the upper Churchill Reservoir. Without control of when the water flows only 20% of power can be guaranteed for a specific time.

    Nalcor cannot guarantee power for peak periods of demand without Hydro Quebec concurrence and thus cannot obtain much higher peaking power rates. They cannot even guarantee electric heat power onto the island during winter months. If Quebec Hydro's demand shifts such that it is better to store energy during the winter and sell in the summer then they will not release water during that period. This would require either purchasing power from Hydro Quebec or other on island options which could have been done in the first place.

    • Upper CF is operated as a base load plant for the HQ system and runs flat out in the wintertime (this is why there is the guaranteed winter availability contract, AKA GWAC), November to March/April, and from then for the rest of the year at about 70% capacity. Water management at upper CF is important but not necessarily a game changer for Muskrat success. The annual runoff must be discharged through the upper plant for HQ to realize the benefit of the obscenely low contract rates.

    • Anon 15:28: "UC is operated as a base load plant for the HQ system and runs flat out in the wintertime, Nov to March/Apr"

      That info is extremely relevant & critical. (And it's also compatible with own reading of the GWAC)

      So the water flow from UC should be totally predictable during those winter months and would allow (or force) MF to also run close to flat out.

      And as NL/NS also happen to need more power during those same months… (But not so predictable/useful for the rest of the year – when UC production must be more of a variable nature)

    • But I agree, demand (and climate…) do change and HQ could also alter the way it uses UC – in conjunction with its overall production network.

      So some sort of water management agreement would still be a way better option.

    • HQ operates the upper CF as a base load in winter months because they have a high winter demand due to lighting and heating costs during that period. The market is changing with LED lighting and more efficient heating systems plus switch to natural gas heat and net zero homes.

      Traditional pre-dam winter flow in the Churchill River was low and HQ will revert back to it if they do not have sufficient market. The total flow year round is about 70% of full capacity (average total output).

      The financing on Muskrat is about 50 years and 22 long years before 2041 if even then NL controls the flow. That uncertainty of the timing of operations is not something on which anyone would invest their own money. But then Ed got $6 M for bankrupting Nalcor and all the supporters are doing fine on the supply contracts

    • UC is used as a flexible base load plant. There is a minimum running at all time but there is much more power taken winter months than summer.

      GWAC is nothing but charity to keep CFLCo alive.

      Heracles already explained all of that million times (he said 17% instead of 20% but small difference here…) So sad he is not here anymore to provide us with all the details and we have to endure so many idiots instead…

    • Must be rough enduring idiots and bottom feeders too.

      You don’t seem to grasp that what happened for the past 45 years is not necessarily going to continue the same for the next 50. The UC has capacity to be flat out about 73% of time. The capacity factor can also be further reduced by adding upwards of 100 MW capacity producing greater peak outputs but the same total power. The river has to be at full flow in the spring run off but the rest of the time is controlled based on the market or corporate strategy and charity is nowhere in sight.

      The uncertainties towards the paradyne shift in the electrical markets can lead to flow control not necessarily in the best interest of the province. The timing control of the supply of energy is a big deal and that is a large part of the reason the province has spent tens of millions fighting it in court. A mismatch in water flow and energy needs even for a small part of the year can have very serious financial consequences and no bank in the world would have loaned the money without this control except off course with the federal backing

    • There must be a Nalcor employee somewhere that could comfirm us how UC is currently operated during winter months.

      It would definitely appear logical that UC is operated flat out during winter months.

      If so, a win-win water management agreement should be easily reachable by both parties. MF could then operate close to flat out all winter months and provide reliable / predictable base load – at a time when we can use all the power we can get.

      Outside above identified winter months, a water mgt agreement is not really critical. Our island production capacity is plenty suficient alone to provide for both the island needs and Emera obligations.

      (However, we all agree with above poster that timing control of the supply of energy is a big deal – it's the big value driver)

    • No need for Nalcor to tell about this. In the court case about the block theory, the one involving water management, HQ's explained how and why they take little power during summer and much more during winter. All the idea behind a reservoir is that and UC has one of the biggest reservoir in the world.

      These documents being from the court, they can be trusted (as opposed to anything from Nalcor….)

    • 'sig' isn't in Oxford's Concise. Must be code, or something other. While I'm on; we have near exhausted the lessons learned by now. As Bruno says there won't be another Muskrat type project for next 50 yrs at least. There will be no opportunity for this learned Society to put into play all this valued TechLit. Most of us will be dead, or out of the spheres of authority. Let's come back down to earth and come up with a Plan, any Plan for Sustainable Living. Thinking of my new friend "Wegian/Newf" Tor:-)

  8. Good to see the NTV clip of NDP Michaels continue to question Coady on Nalcor's plans, or lack thereof, of the Avalon power security when the DC line goes down. No real answer. One should not wait for it to happen before having the plan, and we now the result of blindly trusting Nalcor. On this clip, Graham Letto is statue like, as previously he was like a nervous Nellie, seeing he is trying to add to grid peak load.
    Does he have a clue? Is he , like PENG2 getting a sig?
    By the way, the Fed Budget Minister is said to drive a EV himself, and is putting 300 million into EV rebates, good for 60,000 EVs?
    Letto would do well to announce island charging stations, even little PEI govn is doing that. Or is govn ties to the oil industry hindering advancing EV plans?
    As Robert Holmes says , Nfld has no sustainable energy plan. None of the parties has a plan. MHA's priority no 1 is to get elected and get a pension.
    Past MHA and Minister for Tories, Haig Young passed away recently, His motto when running ;"I'll be the last man to let you down" His line of work was an an undertaker. He was 91, I heard, and was living in BC.
    How come so many Nflders migrate to BC?
    Haig was from Upper Island Cove. I speculate he was called after Haig, the British Butcher of the Somme. Haigs father, John was WW1 vet.
    Dwight,our Premier, I guess was called after the American General, leading the D-Day invasion?

    • Don't forget Harrington's son did a lot of the hiring of the over priced staff for the project. Also Winston, Robert, Bruno, Peng2 and any other scholar I may have missed, could you please put your massive brain power together and find out why the condensers at Soldiers Pond are being stripped down. (metal filings)
      Keep your eyes on the ball.

    • My understanding,(a mechanical engineer would know better), is that these very heavy machines, tens of tons in weight, and resting on its bearings, can sag (I guess like wooden boat hauled up needs support under the keel). So, it needs turning t prevent the sag. Now if off a very small amount, a bad vibration happens.
      Where they stored for a long time and not rotated? was there a manufacturing flaw? Or metal filings, or corrosion in damp weather, or other issues? If a Nalcor caused problem, then mumb is the word. Any email on it, get it deleted. If a hard copy, have it shredded.
      This should not be a secret matter, should it?

    • This is an excerpt from the Telegram editorial For Nalcor's Eyes Only…

      "Harrington wanted to meet with senior Nalcor staff to check the numbers on the revised document. Remember, these are the company’s top-ranked staff, people who already knew where the project stood.

      But the revisions and the PowerPoint deck that contained them apparently weren’t going to be shared in Nalcor’s self-professed open and supportive manner or, for that matter, in an environment where information moves freely.

      In fact, as Harrington spelled out in an email, any sharing of that information was going to be short-lived and very limited.

      “I do not wish to have the deck sent around by email,” Harrington wrote. “Hard copy drafts only will be handed out, collected and shredded because this is scenarios-based and preliminary data.”

      Now, that’s only one small sentence amongst thousands upon thousands of sentences. But the tone is eye-opening, especially as the inquiry has heard evidence that Nalcor as a whole was concerned about the ability of people outside the corporation to get their hands on sensitive information about the ballooning costs of the project — and further financial risks on the horizon.

      “Sincere in everything we say and do,” but documents are to be collected and shredded after the meeting.

      Lofty goals are measured by how successful they are or whether they are just so much lip service."

      So that's the rotten clothe that little shit HARRINGTON is cut from… nothing but a goddamned crafty little shrew.

    • Here's the link to Harrington's email as referenced in The Telegram's editorial MRF Inquiry Exhibit P-01830

      Here's the crafty little bastard HARRINGTON's original email copied directly from exhibit P-01830:

      On Mar 6, 2015, at 10:30 AM, "Paul Harrington" wrote: > > I spoke to Ed and he wanted to be in a position to discuss a project cost update with senior GNL > Folk next week . This is a follow up to the Friday 13th meeting. Ed would prefer to meet Sunday pm so I was hoping that some of us could meet Saturday Pm to review the deck that Steve and George were asked to develop which would track the costs from June 2014 to the current status, the same three buckets of reliability, market and productivity, with the emphasis on the market drivers and productivity concerns that we are experiencing from the contractors on the latest contract s. > So I am requesting that you make an effort to join in person or phone in to run through this. I do not wish to have the deck sent around by email. Hard copy drafts only will be handed out , collected and shredded because this is scenarios based and preliminary data. > Pis let me know if you can meet or phone in at 2pm Saturday and 3pm Sunday for an hour > Regards Paul > Sent from my iPad

      So what else did these conniving fuckers see fit to have shredded?

    • Wasn't Harrington the same individual who wanted to bloack Nalcor from receiving the SNC Lavalin risk assessment report because it would then become part of the public record and hence subject to scrutiny under ATTIPA requests?

      This guy sounds like a duplicitous spook… and it's NL taxpayers who're footing the bill for his no doubt exorbitant salary, part of which was used to pay him for his efforts to keep the truth about the MRF fiasco from taxpayers.

      That's just bloody-well infuriating.

      Why is this individual still being bankrolled by NL taxpayers?

    • Anon: @22:13 why so irate at PH, and only PH. Maybe he was only caring out the orders of senior management EM And GB, and maybe the premier, at the time PD, as they were in election mode. The date on the telegram release was March, 2015, and the election was in November, 2015. Now I am no fan of PH, only saw him on TV, but the senior managers knew it, and guess their orders to PH was don't let this filter down and get out to the public until after the election. That would seem reasonable. Now PD under oath said he didn't know anything, not even if the War was over, but he had reason to, or they all did, the election was only a few months away. That's how I see the big picture, and PH was the man in the middle. If PD as premier didn't know it, he sure as hell should have. Nalcor should have keep the premier and govt. informed. Maybe we will never know. But no doubt that is the main purpose of the inquiry, of who knew what when says Joe blow.

    • One more addition, with the exception of EM and KD and a couple of others, they are all being represented by one lawyer, TW. That is so they can keep the lid on things and their stories straight to serve the purpose. All becoming as clear as mud, or maybe clearer says Joe blow.

    • And by the way, recall that Tommy Williams, who reminds me of the Godfather, of the mafia movie, had to withdraw his remarks, was it about Dave Vardy?
      Anyway, the godfather, when the Innu rep was on the stand, he, TW led questions to praise the project; "Was it tens or hundreds of partnership companies that got contracts"? The Innu was honest, to TWs disappointment, to say tens.
      But days later TW, again trying to promote the benefits stated that there were hundreds of these partnership companies. No one corrected him, and so he misled the commissioner.
      Should he not apologise and withdraw his statement?
      That is my memory, and the record can show if true or false.
      I say the godfather owes an apology to the Inquiry and the Innu on that. So even that , TW could not keep the story straight, as the Innu told the truth, and the godfather spoke falsely or lied.Like in the movies: the whiteman speak with forked tongue.

  9. Be sure and read Tom Adams put down of Ches's rate mitigation plan this AM.
    Not pushing Liberal agenda, but the Budget does have incentive to advance Low Carbon, Clean Growth Economy;
    Municipal action is the front line in this regard. We must all encourage our Councils to step up the game plan. How well is yours doing? Despite all the favourable commentary you hear about BC Clean and the carbon tax, there is little evidence on the ground of any follow through in accessing Green Energy Funding and exercising Sustainable Development. There is Work to do.

  10. If we are going to sell power to the USA we are bound by FERC.

    "In Order No. 888, the Commission required non-public utilities that own, operate or control transmission facilities, as a condition of receiving open access transmission service from a public utility under its OATT, to provide reciprocal transmission service on comparable terms."

    That means Newfoundland consumers can purchase energy from the mainland and Nalcor can only charge reasonable distribution fees. If this doesn't happen, NL will most likely lose access to the US market due to their refusal to allow reciprocity.

    • Interesting peace of info anon.

      However, I'm not sure when it would make sense to purchase US power thought, particularly when we know HQ could reliably offer much better prices most of the time.

      And conversely, I'm not really sure when NL/NS will ever be in a position to economically export power to the US. Shutting down first those NS&NB dirty thermal generating stations would make better sense (economically and environmentally speaking).

      Furthermore, any utilities attempting to export power might get road blocks by US producers if that power is "perceived" to be subsidized somehow (due to the "FLG" or selling MF power below production costs…).
      That's one of the reasons both "HQ Production" and "HQ TransÉnergie"(separated from "HD Distribution") have bullet proof accounting processes and have avoided any sorts of cross subsidies. (Even an eventual Feds interconnection financing could be considered as a subsidy!!).

      So I would not rely too much on the windfalls of a US Market access just yet. Some further clarifications (or gymnastics…) could be required.

  11. If the way today's witness (James Meaney) answers questions (very much the way Ed Martin answers questions) is what today's higher education does for (or to) a person, then its time to re-think what is happening in today's institutions of "higher" learning.

    • This is what happens when you are trying to follow a script, and not permitted to tell the truth, and remain a part of the so called team. Now in eddies case he can make it up as he goes along, but still mainly follow the script. Not much to do with higher learning, more to do with ethics. As he mentioned frustration many times, and that's what happens, you begin to studded over your words says Joe blow.

  12. So we are already being screwed by Canada 'enabling' this MF fiasco (mostly for the benefit of NS/Canada) and now with the 2nd loan guarantee, Canada is charging this province 0.5% annually ($14,000,000 a year decreasing yearly) as a fee for that largess.

    Peachy. Just peachy.

    • Of course you are. Impossible for it to be anything else because you defined NL as a permanent victim. That way, you will never have any kind of responsibility and will always be screwed by the entire world.

  13. Meaney tried every way to avoid answering the last question: that the information in the document was inaccurate. (the document involved costing information that Nalcor was required to disclose to the Independent Engineer and the Feds).
    If was signed off on by Gilbert Bennett, Vice President of Nalcor, and hid cost increases known to Nalcor…..this the gist I think.
    This to me seems equal and similar,to general contractors signing affidavids, which is legal documents , that says they have paid all their subcontractors up to date, in order to get payment from the government.
    It is essentially a sworn document that all is true and accurate. Otherwise one is signing a false document, a criminal offence , I suggest.
    Hence, the squirming by Meaney, knowing Learmonth had cornered him, having to admit Gil had done the dirty deed.
    If I am right , this is a big deal,likely criminal, not just ethical.
    How will Gil get out of this one? Plead ignorance….he was too busy to verify the information? The devil made him do it? He was obeying orders from Ed Martin? Just an error, at a stressful time? What does Peng2 think?

    • I regularly see progress claims on government contracts (building construction) that claim that all subs have been paid. It is usually a lie because many big companies won't pay the subs until they have been paid by government. That way they don't have to float any monies. I have found small contractors that haven't been paid a cent even after substantial completion (e.g. building is 98% complete). Nobody wants to complain too much because a couple of construction companies in Newfoundland control most of the business and if you fight for your rights, you will be blacklisted. My point here is that corruption and unethical behaviour is rampant in Newfoundland. Gil would fit right in as a deputy minister since ethics is apparently incompatible with business and government.

    • I have no doubt that the same is true for recent forecasts that have not upped the cost estimate for years now despite constant bumbling. With a pushover like Meaney counting the beans, Gil and Stan are likely up to the same nonsense.

      It is likely the true figure today is 15 billion (and climbing) and Meaney is doing Stan's lying today.

    • PF @ 18:34:

      Honestly, I don't think very much of it – somewhere between unethical vs amoral vs illegal. I suspect there will be several more instances of ‘procedural’ interest coming up, for those that are in-tune with that – this week has been particularly interesting procedurally, this is what tells the real story of an Inquiry.

      When considering the 4 basic questions the inquiry is to answer – Nalcor are not helping themselves very much (if even there is plausible deniability). I think enough has been presented to date to show improper sanction, improper founding analysis and improper oversight – the only remaining question is should the PUB have been excluded. In the exhibits yesterday, there were handwritten notes from KM stating that the NS UARB was a concern – so if pursued further it might even proven the PUB was improperly excluded.

      Also, you are referring to a statutory declaration – I see lots, never faked 1 as another posted alleged – they are notarized, so I would be suspect of faking a true 'stat dec'. What Nalcor submitted was not notarized, though that becomes an argument of intent vs letter of law.

      The last cost increase was mid – 2017 (upto $12,7B), this number was confirmed to be intact by the oversight committee in last 2018, but they didn’t include costs attributable to the Astaldi issue or the Inquiry – add $1B is about right.


    • Peng2 says this event is "somewhere between unethical vs amoral vs illegal", but also says "Honestly, I don't think very much of it"
      So if it somewhere in the mix as Peng2 says:
      If unethical, that is a breach of the engineer's code of conduct.
      If amoral? Amoral means having no sense of right or wrong, no conscience, outside the sphere where moral judgement applies, a selfish person pursuing his own goals, a cynical and amoral way of competing for business, Stealing from the poor is an example of amoral action. Synonyms: corrupt, depraved, unconstrained, uncontrollable, unprincipled, wanton. An example as to military officers: "At the end were the amoral characters whose excesses became steadily worse as the situation blackened".
      Illegal: perhaps the worse for consequences.
      So if somewhere in this mix, none are favourable and all very damming.
      Yet…. Peng2 says even in this mix…. "Honestly, I don't think very much of it"
      This says much about the character of Peng2, does it not, who after all, does not deny he is paid by Nalcor or others to comment and influence opinion on this blog.

    • PF @ 11:29:

      Your interpretation is off base. To have the same meaning, I could also have wrote:
      Honestly, I don't think highly of it – somewhere between unethical vs amoral vs illegal.

      The reason for saying "…unethical vs amoral vs illegal…" is I am not sure most of the corporate Nalcor persons were practicing Engineering in a situation like this (if a task could have been completed by either EM or GB – it is obviously not a function of an Engineer). I would enjoy another Engineers input on this.

      Now in considering the JM reporting issue, I can only assume accountants have a similar Code of Practice as an Engineer does – but again are the documents being sealed by a professional?


    • Essentially little difference in saying "I don't think highly of it" and saying "I don't think much of it". TO say you don't think highly is even worse at meaning not significant.
      Whether Engineering or Accounting, to mislead and to issue inaccurate information is significant, and suggests both professions had a similar role.
      The legal profession seemed to be amoral by nature, and acting likewise. And this is evident in about 20 lawyers at the Inquiry trying to defend, and make excuses for all those that enabled the boondoggle, they are all amoral as we watch in real time.
      It is suggested by some that corporations, and most politicians are by their nature amoral; take SNC and the fallout.
      Even that Peng2, you defend SNC that they should not be subject to criminal prosecution!
      Your opinion on this blog expose the content of your character, so I doubt my interpretation is off base, but welcome your clarifications.
      Fraud over 5000.00 is serious crime. Here they hide increasing costs of hundreds of millions……..whether intent to hide?
      Meaney, late Friday, admitted the document was inaccurate, so half way or more there…..intent is another issue, and seems to me that it WAS INTENDED to hide it. I thought that achievement by Learmonth was indeed significant, and was difficult to achieve……Meaney tried every way to avoid answering.

    • PF @ 14:16:

      Your understanding of what I wrote above (and also of SNC) is way off – maybe a re-read is in order, just try to comprehend instead of putting your own misguided spin into what was actually said.

      I also think your understanding of the differences in 'practicing Engineering' vs 'being an Engineer' – is lacking.

      I standby my statement that I don't see any practice of Engineering by Nalcor in this situation, and infact very little to date at the Inquiry.


    • I take that to practice engineering assumes one is deemed to be an engineer, whether by a degree or natural talent and study and experience.
      Also that economics is part of the practice of engineering, and would be a significant part of Mfs, it being fundamentally uneconomic, due to the complex engineering nature, and difficult terrain, and distance of transmission etc of the project. I suggest that Stan Marshall being both an engineer and also understanding engineering economics, would not have led us into the boondoggle, (questionable if he can lead us out)
      That costing for MFs was underestimated, risks hidden, and these costs then materialized and attempted to be hidden further. Gilbert Bennett, an engineer and a Vice President of Nalcor signed off on that deceit.
      Do you suggest that his dong so, is is separate from the practice of engineering, it being an accounting or economic issue……….is that your argument, that you try to defend the engineering profession from this event, that it is not the same as geotechnical analysis, or calculation of transmission losses etc, ( a more science based technical aspect of engineering). Economics and costing is an important part of engineering, is it not? Are you saying they are separate?

    • PF @ 19:38:

      Maybe have a look a the Engineering curriculum and the definition of Engineering practice – economics is a minor part of the academic program in the past. I am not sure that the economic analysis aspect of MF is an Engineering function – though the development of demand models etc would most likely be. P-factors, risk, economic viability etc I learned though other academic undertakings – not sure of others.

      Agreed that to practice, an individual must be an Engineer – but Engineers don't always practice engineering. SM would be a prime example – he replaced EM in the same position, and the CEO position didn't magically become an Engineering position just because SM is an Engineer. So, is SM practicing Engineering as the CEO – I am not so sure.

      I would like comments by other Engineers on this distinction.


    • I recall one textbook I had on Engineering Economics from the 1960s. Not a large part overall, but in practice, I suggest economics is a much larger part for many engineers, including MFs;
      Example: the power rates that can make or break an economic case, and whether to proceed, and elasticity effect should have been part of the engineering analysis……..Straton ignored it…….was it beyond his understanding or scope of work?
      The cost effectiveness of DC vs AC, the ice loading on two conductors for DC instead of 3 for AC, and the spacing and strength of structures and foudations resulting from that. The impact of transmission losses on 1100 km of transmission to Soldiers Pond, ( at about 8% represents about 1 billion dollars of capital cost, 12.7 billion, for energy lost in transmission). The cost comparison for alterantives, including fuel for isolated vs interconnection, is a combination of engineering and economics, as to costs with much consideration of the economics. So too for wind generation and CDM, economics is a big part. So to for operating Holyrood for decades more or using gas turbines as backup , the economics is a big factor. All power company application t the PUB require detailed cost/ benefit analysis, done by engineering.
      For commercials and institutional buildings, designing for LEEDs low energy use is combining engineering and economics, why added costs is cost effective long term for the life of the building.
      Watts steam engine improvements were sold on the basis of reduce coal costs, so on the economics. So too Bombardier economics for fuel savings with efficient engineering……economics is a major factor for innovation and marketing and sales.
      I would suggest that most engineering is a dead end if not economic, short or long run, even EVs. An appropriate engineering economic analysis would have mothballed Mfs.
      I suggest economics is largely inseparable from engineering, except in basic concept design; see it it can work , then is it economic to scale up : consider Peckford's Piclke Palace. it could work but the engineering economics was not applied before going forward.
      That's my take.

    • Not only was Ed martin not an engineer, but the Nalcor Board begged for board members having technical engneering background to assist them , and this was not acted on.
      So, not by chance that SM was both an engineer and capable on economics, an ideal combination for power companies, and Nalcor. I suggest that SM is indeed using his engineering skills and experience and also knowledge of economics. His presentation at the Inquiry showed his ability in both the electrical and mechanical sphere,thought not an expert,he being a chemical engineer, but I am sure he has a much greater appreciation of the technical challenges of the project as compared to Ed martin. And too. as to high states poker, to deal with Emera and NS, like the Gambler song, when to hold them or fold them, Marshall would not have made the blunders Ed Martin did…..on both engineering and economics,…. Ed Martin was , to be blunt , an idiot, taking us to places, unknown as to high risk, that even Spock of Starteck would not go. Spock would consult with Scottie , in engineering, who wouuld say :too risky, Capt Kirk, our power supply would likely fail, the Enterprise might implode.
      Instead we have from Ed Martin, the gatekeepr: full speed ahead Warp 5, and make sure to hide the risks and escalating cost. And Gilbert Bennett is no Scottie , as to engineering. …..a cable guy experience background.

    • WA @ 11:21:

      A short quote from you:
      An appropriate engineering economic analysis would have mothballed Mfs.
      I suggest economics is largely inseparable from engineering, except in basic concept design; see it it can work , then is it economic to scale up : consider Peckford's Piclke Palace. it could work but the engineering economics was not applied before going forward.

      100% agreed, but seeing as the detailed design wasn't complete, and the proper analysis (impartial Engineering and economic) wasn't done I am having a bit of trouble saying MF sanction is an Engineering failure – I think it was political failure instead.

      Overall, a small point to most but I think important to have clarified – the why decisions were made vs how decision were made vs quality of supporting info. I guess the question not 100% answered at the Inquiry yet is were the professionals responsible for sanctioning allowed to make independent decisions.


    • With all due respect to you engineering guys, engineering economics, engineering practises etc. How about a little bit of engineering common scense, that's all it took to figure that out it was only nut cases that would go 1100 km to get the little bit of power we needed. As soon as I heard there was no economic case to be made to develop lower Churchill and sell it into the US market, or supply the 3 maratime provinces, I knew it was a boondoggle. And a couple of my engineering friends disagreed with me, but I told them what I taught anyway. But glad you guys confirmed with your engineering knowledge and skills what should be common science. Like Stan the man said, he could probably put a power line to the moon, but for what a reason and at what cost. Made about as much scense. Now on the Peckford pickle greenhouse, that might not have been such a crazy idea, considering today everyone is going green and wants to grow their own 50 lbs of veggies in their own back yard as part of food self suffucienty, not sure at what cost to all. But if these Hugh green houses were located in central and maybe the west coast, and grew all kinds of greens, not just cucumbers, for our own use and possible shipped elsewhere with economics of scale, it might not have been such a looney project. He only spent just over 20$ million a mere drop in the bucket. We might have Been growing all year round, yes maybe even using a few heat pumps, on cold days or when the sun didn't shine. Now everyone wants to grow but the Hugh green houses are all gone says Joe blow.

    • Engineering common sense: the root cellar, good temperature and high RH, and everyone understood it worked well, and most put double doors to prevent freezing from high cold winds. Usually built on a place that didn't flood. Common sense engineering, no text book needed. And too the sod house of the Vikngs, and the igloo, where snow is an insulator, and too, Nflders banked snow around the walled foundations.
      400 years ago the military, French and English , had engineers to design fortification. And Herod of the Bible and the pyramid builders had engineers in Egypt and Central America. So MUN is late in the game.
      Now , instead of "green houses" that use a lot of energy in winter, it seems insulated structures, no outside light, but LED lights, is the way, growing food, stacked levels in warehouses, in the cities ( and would seem maybe good for the Labrador coast towns, who right now is out of fresh vegitables. Not sure for the plan for weed growing here?
      So, common sense engineering and economics, sometimes needing a bit of specialized engineering. So why did your engineering friends get it wrong Joe? Biases?
      The last question posed by PENG2 is important, I think, as to what degree MFs is an engineering as well as a political failure. I think many , most engineers turned a blind eye ( much evidence of that) and went with the flow, full speed ahead, come hell or high water, or no water even, if the Spur fails.

    • Lol..right on Winston, remember the root cellar all too well, and the last one I was involved in was concrete, double doors and a stack. Think you answered yourself the question you posed in the last scentence. Everything has to be better and bigger and the govt. is good for it and they didn't come through any hard times, and spent too much time on their computers, like Stratton, and forgot about common scense. Tks. Average Joe.



  15. Can Learmonth ask Meaney what the cost of Muskrat Falls is as it stands today? There's no way this clunker is still at 13.7 billion. And if it's more as i suspect, will there be future inquiry's as to why we weren't told? What a mess. Move if you can folks. This hell hole keeps sinking deeper.

    • We all must realize that when you allow political influence to play its hand as Owner, PM/Contractor say of any commercial enterprise, it becomes a sort of a war zone, with respect to truth. Churchill coined the phrase about "truth is so precious that she always be attended by a bodyguard of lies". Read the Cave Brown account of WWII, "Bodyguard of Lies". On the ground, the contract admin guys new the boat was leaking, and was sinking. The Captain of the Titanic was on a mission to sink the ship, for gold for the Owners. "Keep it all secret". Some day, we will know the final cost of the Boondoggle. (two or three years from today).

    • Robert @ 11:24:

      You (and Levy above) summarize 1 of the reasons why the Inquiry was called too quickly – the Inquiry wont know(nor be able to review) the status of REAs, final costs or issues that are arising over the 2-3yrs from calling the Inquiry until substantial completion. The other main reason is the status of completion – without substantial completion and commissioning completed, there will be no concept of the breadth or depth of issues being encountered.

      I still say by limiting LeBlanc to 2yrs, we short changed ourselves – some want to claim politics for the report being after the election, but he in reality needed until 2021 to be properly thorough.

      Considering there was no stopping MF, there was no harm being induced by waiting to give the best review possible.


  16. The Telegram Editorial "Climate Change Alert"is hardly breaking news. We are invormed that Halifax and Vancover, 2 months ago declared a climate change emergency, following prior similar moves by London and Los Angles. So eventually St John's may follow suit. I believe Harvard was stated nearly 2 centuries before MUN, so when will Nfld catch up with the climate change emergency that threatens; 11 years to make substantial changes or we lose the war.
    Meanwhile few see the disconnect with this emergency and the plan to double oil production, and…. no indication of a move to electrify transportation with our renewable energy resources.
    The Telegram editorials has never seriously elevated the debate, but sits on the fence, more content to point fingers at Trump than at our own climate change policy, and failure of our power companies here, including Take Charge.
    Not much Premium Content from the Telly on that subject. Letto announced funding of about 1500.00 on average for all our towns, enough for a sign to be erected ;style not substance.
    Winston Adams

  17. And was the MF fiasco (with the backloading of MF costs to future generations) in accord the Act's definition of sustainable development?

    'sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'

    With about 1200 MW of existing renewable island energy, today at 2:30 we were at only at 916, almost 300 MW to spare with out needing DC in feed or thermal( although likely Holyrood old units were still fired up, the nature of those obsolete inefficient beasts).
    916 MW: Not good for power sales revenue, also should show up on exports to NS, to help pay for the extension cord there, but zero revenue from that.
    Our surplus would charge a lot of EVs if we had them, with big GHG savings.
    Does PENG2 think island EVs is better than exporting energy, as to our reducing transport GHGs?.

    • WA @ 23:44:

      EVs are certainly going to have an increasing impact in the future. There are about 325k road vehicle registered in NL – how many would be replaced by EVs in the next 20yrs, say maybe 50%? If we reduce our transportation GHGs by say 25% that is definitely good, but how will NLers look at the cost impact of reduce revenues(if any revenues) and infrastructure investments when only 1 in 2 or 3 have an EV?

      No doubt there are benefits, but will NLers adopt to EVs in sufficient numbers to warrant the investment? Being that NLers are typically slow adopters I question if EVs will become mainstream here in the near future – I don't question the achievable benefits though.

      I think a bit of chicken and egg scenario for EVs replacing ICEs.


    • Adoption will be terrible in Newfoundland. I have perfectly good antiques that I can maintain indefinitely and I use about two tanks of gasoline a month. That costs me about $120/month or $1,500 a year. A new Nissan 2019 LEAF will cost me almost $50,000 + tax.

      The electric car will never pay for itself. I also wonder what our road salt will do to the battery pack. Tesla owners are complaining that the body work collects 30+ pounds of dirt and if this is salt/sand instead, the Mazda6 subframe recall will seem like a joke. (subframe failure at less than 10 years). I can see corroded battery packs shorting out.

      As for range, the 2019 LEAF might make it from St. John's to Clarenville and back if you drive the speed limit. It isn't a very practical thing for anyone that just wants to drive across the island on one go. The Chevy VOLT might work — electric in town and gasoline most of the way to the ferry.

      We have no rebates. Mass adoption will only happen if the federal government phases out gasoline powered passenger cars and we have no choice but to go electric. That is probably inevitable. One possibility I foresee is that gasoline cars will be eliminated but there will be exemptions for trucks, and we will all drive trucks.

    • 1.I suggest the most use much more than 1500 a year in gas, maybe like 3000. So may save 2500 a year on fuel? Also low maintenance.
      2. I have a battery pack in a 2005 Prius, zero corrosion after 14 years, so I expect batteries are well protected on EVs. Battery was my biggest concern back then, and proved not an issue..
      3. How many want to drive 10 hrs non stop?
      4 .Chevy Volt is discontinued, as more are going for all electric
      5 Most all driving is local of medium distance, not to the ferry
      6 Feds now have rebates of 5000.00, and for fun I will give 500 rebate to first 2, reading this, that buys a Leaf, just to piss you off. Maybe the prov govn will come with a rebate too, to promote Synapse electrification.
      7 Trucks too are going EV, even very large trucks that operate in mining……can't get much bigger than that.
      8 Adoption in Nfld was supposed to be terrible for Minisplits, now most want them.
      9 New Leaf about 36800 list before discount. The extended range with 60kwh battery is 43,000 list plus tax. Standard model less fed rebate is about 32,000 , not 50,000.
      10 Perhaps you work for the oil companies? Or car Mfg that don't make EVs?
      11. Clearly you care not as to GHG emissions.

    • PENG2, infrastructure for EVs, estimated at 100,000 per charging station ( I assume each station has multiple chargers, seems like chicken feed as to costs.
      Update and slow to adopt depends on cost effectiveness, awareness and promotion. For minisplits Nfld power survey showed 5 % was aware from power companies and 60 % from relative and friends. That was several years ago, and Nfld power still misleading as to reasonable expectations from best practices. So why are we slow to adopt to good new technology? PLASTIC ON YOUR WINDOWS? As a shareholder, complain to Fortis! Are you aware of the many billions most all mgs now devoting to EV models? They are gearing up for this to be main stream, so why should we be late, and we with a surplus of green energy if MF operates. Must we assume we are to be last in the country to adopt this ? Can we not be like Norway for EVs? You seem to send a negative signal, despite its advantages. A realist you might say? Sounds defeatist….. that Nflders are this way , and no changing it? Ok , so we wait for the ocean to rise, because we chose to do nothing meaningful? We have 11 years. We start in year 15 from now?

  19. The fifteen take always from phase 1…..occurred mainly on KD and EM watch. There will be other take always from phase 2 and phase 3. That will be on the watches , of KD, EM, TM, PD, DB and SM. These guys wanted to be premier, they campaigned, they defeated their opposition, they convinced us they they were the one to make us great. TM was the exception, he had power thrust upon him, he was a care taker premier, so he is in a slightly different catagory. The others wanted the glory of being premier, we gave it to them, along with all the responsibilities of running a province including muskrat falls. The other two unelected, CEO's obtained power and glory, not by being elected, but by accepting appointments and the responsibility that goes with a 12$ billion burning of the public treasury. Now many others in government and nalcor had responsibilities and contributed to the boondoggle wittingly or unwittingly. Their responsibilities and blame are much less. They were mainly working a job, that most of us do. As for they other elected MHA's they wanted the job, they convinced us they could do the job too, so they bear a great responsibility. But in our system the buck has to stop somewhere, and we have to hold these premiers, and CEO' s as where the buck stops and ultimate responsibility. One of the main objectives of the inquiry is who knew what when, so that the blame can be proportioned between the premier's and the CEO's. So we have heard, no one knew nothing, there was not a free flow of info between govts. and nalcor. They have been all on the stand, at different times, and pushing the buck to someone else. So what we need to see now, Mr. Comissiinear, is these guys not on the stand at different times but at the same time. We have seen as many as 4 individuals on the stand at once. Now we need to see, EM and KD on at the same time, EM and TM at the same time, EM and PD on at the same time. EM and DB on at the same time, SM and DB on at the same time. Let's get them face to face to get closer to the truth of who knew or did what when. Enough of passing the buck around. This can be done in phase 2, or maybe the judge is saving that for the final phase says Joe blow.