the Witness Stand at the Muskrat Falls Inquiry, former Premier Paul Davis displayed
the confidence of one who believed he knew what he was talking about. A
confident Derrick Dalley, the former Tory Minister of Natural Resources,
succeeded him. Trouble is, confidence is no substitute for the good judgment
they ought to have brought to their senior positions.

was leadership worldly-wise enough to understand the need for a process that
assured “oversight” of the project at the highest level. The decision required
personnel of international stature that was “earned” — not “awarded” by Kathy Dunderdale.

wonder that Davis was once dubbed the “Corporal Premier” on this Blog, having admitted
to the Inquiry that his chief source of information on Muskrat was Dalley.

about the blind leading the blind. The Telegram reported Dalley admitting, in
2014, that he didn’t need “to see the report of the Independent Engineer… because
he was already confident with what Nalcor officials were telling him.”

and large, the public don’t expect politicians to understand technical matters.
They do expect, however, that an initiative is done for the right reasons (good
policy) and that the public interest is protected. 

any practical level, lay people who find themselves installed in high office would
know that that an expenditure of $7.4 billion holds high risk for the public
treasury. Lay people are also capable of distinguishing “qualified” and “independent”.
 They would not consider Nalcor CEO, Ed
Martin, as the best person to appraise his own skills or those of his
management team.

too, lay people can deduce that a committee of public servants — advised not by
an engineering firm but by accountants — is not the best way to install oversight
on a complex megaproject. Beginning with the Cabinet Clerks, they were
careerists who would not risk telling truth to power. The politicians liked it
that way.

this shallow process was not established until March 2014, long after Sanction,
five months after “Financial Close”. Hence, the Government missed the critical
period when, according to Grant Thornton, Nalcor still had time to reconsider
the cost and schedule and turn back.

Davis took no initiative to improve on what this Blog then referred to as “fake”
oversight installed by Premier Tom Marshall who acted not because the project
was in disarray but due to public pressure for a check on Nalcor.

could each Premier not perform the best due diligence possible on Muskrat, having
been warned of cost overruns via Ed Martin’s nebulous phrase “cost pressures”? Were
they wilfully deaf as well as wilfully blind?

weak and flat-footed Premier Dwight Ball undertook at least some project review,
having arrived on the eighth floor.

truth is that on the very day that Premier Danny Williams instructed Ed Martin
to build the project, Muskrat was orphaned by the Government. Not one Tory Premier
or Natural Resources Minister had a clue what to do, except to defer to him.

Dunderdale taken oversight seriously, doffing the blinders that shielded her
from the selected information that constituted Martin’s briefings, she might have
been able to perform push-back on his request for premature sanction. She could
have benefitted from the certainty that comes from detailed engineering,
advanced procurement data and bid prices — not to mention clarity from the Nova
Scotia PUB or with respect to Water Management.

occasions during Davis’ and Dalley’s evidence are especially instructive in
their ignorance of oversight requirements and practices.

first was in reference to Commission Counsel’s questions to Davis about
Schedule delay, during the discussion of Astaldi’s slow ramp-up. Davis stated that
Ed Martin had always exhibited “confidence” that the time could be made up. He
made no reference any “proof” or of a “process” that influenced this conclusion.     

second relates to this comment by Derrick Dalley: “We made decisions on the
best information that we had. We felt that information was right.” “Best
information?” Without an experienced advisor — or several? Without a consistent,
skilled and independent process of verification? When does “felt [it] was right”
substitute for good data and analysis?

third occasion was a statement by Paul Davis telling Commission Counsel about all
the “oversight” that the project had received. Inexplicably, Davis included in
his enumeration the “project management team,” when they were the ones who
needed constant watch.

added the Board of Directors of Nalcor (except that they were begging the
Government — in writing — to supply Board Members having  megaproject expertise, to which request
successive Premiers, including Davis, failed to respond).   

continued that the oversight included “internal auditors” and “external
auditors”. He seemed unaware that the oversight function needed by the Premier was
not related to accounting, except for cost.

added the Auditor General to the group, too — except that the AG publicly
stated that his review was administrative and not related to Muskrat.

Davis invoked the oversight provided by the Independent Engineer — except that the
IE was looking after the Federal Government’s interests and was reporting to
Nalcor (who were editing and changing the IE’s Reports for the most favourable “spin”;
a fact reported on this Blog and confirmed by Grant Thornton).

as if Commission Counsel was supposed to fold his tent in deference to one so
wise, Davis invoked the Oversight Committee — which, as we have noted, was comprised
only of compliant public servants, none being a Professional Engineer.

to the silliness back in August 2014, Premier Tom Marshall went so far as to
include Emera and SNC Lavalin as “form[s] of oversight”.

even Premiers neither understand (nor want) oversight of a killer project for
the Treasury, the public might want to begin considering limits to the level of
“risk” they should be allowed to engage our behalf.

would be wise to keep the threshold low. Of course, there is no antidote for
those who don’t know what they don’t know.

Des Sullivan
Des Sullivan
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada Uncle Gnarley is hosted by Des Sullivan, of St. John's. He is a businessman engaged over three decades in real estate management and development companies and in retail. He is currently a Director of Dorset Investments Limited and Donovan Holdings Limited. During his early career he served as Executive Assistant to Premier's Frank D. Moores (1975-1979) and Brian Peckford (1979-1985). He also served as a Part-Time Board Member on the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB). Uncle Gnarley appears on the masthead representing serious and unambiguous positions on NL politics and public policy. Uncle Gnarley is a fiscal conservative possessing distinctly liberal values and a non-partisan persusasion. Those values and opinions underlie this writer's views on NL's politics, economy and society. Uncle Gnarley publishes Monday mornings and more often when events warrant.


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. Well, I have already had my say on the two Ds, while they were on the stand, and seems my assessment of their performance as the highest levels of public officials, and inept confidence shown on the stand under oat matches UG's assessment. Maybe I was even more critical, as I said they appeared to be totally beyond their dept in the positions they held, serving simply as a front for nalcor and to provide their signature as required, but seems nalcor didn't even need that.single attribute. I think nalcor had dismissed them as relatively unimportant, uninterested, and inept in the bigger scheme of things. Yes, the biggest and most expensive project ever undertaken by govt. on the backs of rate payers, and taxpayers and being our primary representives to look after our interest and the most they could come up with was "oversight" and trust. Had they not ever heard Regan say of the Russians, trust but verify. They stopped at blind trust. Period. Says Joe blow.

  2. I might add that counsel for both 'consumers' and 'concerned citizens' have all but failed to confront witnesses with EVIDENCE of what "knowledge" was "available at the time" and what was "reasonable" (as these are the standards that the commission, via the TOR, has been directed to apply).

    Here are just a few examples of 'evidence' available to counsel(s), but not presented to the commission:–

    . Holyrood, on average (and not at all some years) did not and does not burn 18,000 bbls of oil a day in winter — not even close (yet Marshall and Kennedy ON THE STAND were unconfronted when they repeated this 18,000 bbls a day mantra)

    . MHI,IN ITS NALCOR 10-year historical LOAD ACCURACY assessment, improperly excused Nalcor for not foreseeing the island's reduced industrial island load. Yet there were several years of consecutive reduced industrial island load that Nalcor could have and should have been able to SEE and factor into its pre-sanction forecast (MHI's excuse for Nalcor's record forecast error was not supported by available evidence)

    . re the above, Nalcor's own documentation showed (if my memory serves correctly) that during one or more of those consecutive years 80% of reduced energy sales were not due to reduced industrial load but due to reduced residential sales

    . while in the early years (2011-2012 period) Nalcor (Martin in particular) reported publicly that Nalcor's 50-year 0.8% compound average load growth rate was "conservative". However, Nalcor's own chart shows that is was the island's 40-year historical growth rate of 2.3% that made it possible to make that claim — WHILE MORE THAN 98% OF that 2.3% average growth rate WAS DUE TO THE FIRST 20 YEARS OF THAT 40-YEAR PERIOD. The most recent 20 year period showed 0 to 0.1% average growth (growth was essentially flat). And for the most recent (pre-sanction) 6-year period the average growth was a NEGATVE 2% per year.

    I suspect that at there any many more pieces of relevant evidence in the public domain and placed there by both experts and non-experts alike.

    But none, or very few if any, are being entered into evidence by the peoples counsels.

    Why not?

    • MA @ 09:58:

      I am not sure your interpretation of the MHI report is accurate saying (assuming you have read it), a most important quote:

      Load Forecast Accuracy – The domestic forecast methodology is acceptable, but consistently under-predicts future energy needs at a rate of 1% per future year. The domestic forecast is entirely prepared using econometric modeling techniques. Although these techniques are acceptable, they are not the best utility forecast practices for this sector. Best utility practices
      would incorporate end-use modeling techniques into the forecasting process so that electricity growth can be quantified for all major domestic end-uses.

      The general service forecast methodology used by Nalcor is based on a combination of regression modeling and linear extrapolation techniques that have performed extremely well in the past. The general service forecast has produced accuracy levels within 1-2%, as far as 8-9 years into the future.

      The industrial forecast is prepared on an individual, case-by-case basis, with direct customer contact concerning future operational plans. This methodology is reasonable considering the
      small industrial customer base on the island, but, in hindsight, the assumption of continued operation of two pulp and paper mills was too optimistic and has adversely affected the industrial forecast accuracy. The assumption of continued operation of the one remaining pulp and paper mill throughout the forecast horizon is optimistic and the assumption of no new industrial load additions after 2015 is pessimistic. The amount of variability due to potential load changes is high and could materially impact the results of the cumulative present worth analysis.

      There has also been criticism of Nalcor not collaborating with NL Power on incorporating end-use, DSM CDM etc into forecasting submitted into the record.

      At the end of the day, LeBlancs report concerning article 4 of the ToR will state that MF was improperly sanctioned – not a whole lot more can be said on that other than the 3 sub-clauses under #4 were not 'reasonably' assessed.


    • PENG2 —- You quote portions of the MHI report that are not directly relevant to the points I make.

      MHI effectively covers up Nalcor's lack of historical (plus or minus 1% per year) forecast accuracy FOR THE TOTAL ISLAND LOAD by providing an excuse for Nalcor's many times the standard error rate for the industrial sector forecast.

      MHI also failed to point out that a reduction in the industrial load was apparent in the first 3 years of the last 10-year historical review period and well before the paper mills eventual closured.

      It was the inaccuracy of the "total island load" forecast — not just the general service and residential sector loads/forecasts that Nalcor based its island needs on (that was used to justify Muskrat) — and that total island historical island forecast was not within the industry standard.

      MHI chose to focus positively on where Nalcor's historical forecast was accurate (or even low), and ignore evidence that should have raised red flags about the grossly inaccurate industrial forecast and MHI even provided an excuse for the inaccuracy.

      Why was this kind of stuff not raised by both counsels for the ratepayer?

    • MA @ 12:16:

      The 'key exception' I quoted above is directly applicable in showing that the Nalcor forecasting wasn't in accordance with what is 'reasonable' in the sector – that is what the ToR is referencing in article 4(a)i.

      The reason the above MHI exception is critically important is that it was dated January 2012 – before completion of sanction and the FLG. Any hindsight forecasting after sanction isn't relevant to the sanction decision – so, the above is a dissenting opinion provided to Gov NL prior to MF commitment for which there was no honest assessment of.

      The question is was sanction reasonable or not – it was not, most of what you are saying is supportive but not critically relevant.


    • MA @ 13:31:

      MHI said that while Nalcor’s techniques provided OK results, but were not following best practices because they ignored DSM/CDM, climate inputs, home heat saturation etc – you are showing that Nalcor’s estimate was wrong, and I agree with you on that the estimates were wrong. However, even if Nalcor’s techniques provided correct estimates, their technique still isn’t best practice – that is the difference in relevancy.

      For purposes of the Inquiry, the why Nalcor’s decisions were made is what is important considering article 4(a)i – it’s a fine distinction in separating why vs the result. So, showing that the analysis reasoning was wrong is very relevant while showing the outcome was wrong is less relevant – it might not seem important, but the litmus testing being best practice vs reasonable vs optimum needs this distinction shown.


    • Nice, but unconvincing try, PENG2.

      Something is relevant, or it is not, PENG2.

      There is no 'less relevant' or 'more relevant'.

      As to MHI affirming that is some instances Nalcor did not use best practice.

      MHI went out of its way, nevertheless, to effectively praise the effectiveness and acceptability of Nalcor's practices and even to paint its outcomes as justifiable in the circumstances (and to offer excuses for same).

      This whole fiasco has been a contrived and well planned, co-operative effort to pull the wool over the eyes of citizens (and I think you know it).

    • MA @ 16:54:

      Not quite – in information science there are degrees of being relevant, your opinion of information only being relevant or not is antiquated, binary is the term.

      MHI showing why Nalcor's analysis was flawed has more value than showing a singular result of the same flawed analysis (ie showing year 10 estimates were off doesn't carry the same evidentiary weight as showing flawed analysis tools).


    • PENG2 —

      While 'relevance' may be defined differently in 'information science', I would think that interpreting the application of 'relevance' with respect to the TOR has more to do with the legal interpretation of relevance, not the information science spin you refer to.

      If the evidence is 'relevant', then the judge would give what he or she deems an appropriate 'weight' (importance) to each piece of evidence, no? — e.g. as in your last paragraph.

      I would think that giving weight to evidence is different from ascertaining/judging whether or not such evidence is relevant in the first place.

    • MA @ 09:52:

      Rules of evidence and distinctly different for trial and Inquiries – I think this is where you are going wrong. Check Gomery and Stonechild for the differences; the legal standard for an Inquiry is very different.

      This also relates to why charges cant come from an Inquiry – LeBlanc can assess exhibits that a trial wouldn't allow onto the record.


    • PENG2 — the TOR requires the commission to make judgments about Nalcor/sanction based on 'knowledge that was available at the time' and whether Nalcor's recommendations were thus 'reasonable'.

      The point I am making is simple — there was, WELL BEFORE SANCTION, significant evidence that, e.g., Nalcor's historical total island load forecast accuracy was not sufficiently accurate and that that record could not be justified by MHI's claim that the reduction in 'industrial' load could not have been foreseen.

      I.E., it was not reasonable therefore to rely on Nalco's 50-yr. go-forward forecast.

      There are numerous such points NOT RAISED by the legal reps who are supposed to be representing consumers/citizens.

      Same goes for, among others, the 18,000 bbls a day public propaganda mantra that misinformed the people.

      Repeated, even at the inquiry, and not a word of criticism.

      Perhaps it is "Let's tell the story that government wants told — let truth be damned".

    • Same goes for MHI saying that the length of Nalcor's 50-yr forecast "further magnifies" risk.

      Not just 'magnifies' risk, but "further" magnifies risk.

      Yet, in spite of all the engineering expertise that could have "quantified" that risk, and therefore point out and clearly explain how meaningless a 50 year forecast is, MHI just stated the obvious (which covers their ass) and made no attempt to quantify it, or even to state that it should be quantified.

      AND our consumer and citizens reps SAID NOTHING.

    • MA @ 13:04 / 13:27:

      I am starting to loose tracking of what you are trying to prove.

      You should gain an understanding of inquiries – the Inquiry was commissioned because something went wrong, it now falls to the involved parties to show their actions were 'reasonable', this is an engineering quantifiable term.

      For just 1 example, if you read the exhibits you will see that MHI (and other) says that Holyrood operates 'occasionally' at the 18 kbbls – occasionally is an engineering quantification of <5% frequency. It really doesn't matter what a politician says – unless an Nalcor operations expert rises to say and show by records that Holyrood was operating at capacity for 'some' of the time (ie 5-20% of the time) or 'frequently', 'occasional' stands.

      See above – nothing to date shows consideration under 4(a)i was 'reasonable' as required.


    • The Inquiry was commissioned because of public pressure on those with the 'political'/legislative authority to make it happen (a lot went 'wrong' long before that, yet an Inquiry was not called).

      Engineering is only part of determining the "reasonableness' of this fiasco. What about what constitutes reasonableness from an economic, environmental, affordability, risk (broadly speaking), need, legal, etc. perspective?

      I am referring to what the politicians and Nalcor repeatedly told citizens (not MHI).

      If it doesn't matter what politicians say, why are they called to give evidence?

      So, if there is evidence that HLY did not (in some winters) operate at capacity, don't you think that should have been entered into evidence?

      If the consumer, co-counsel and/or citizens' reps knew that, don't you think it should have been entered into evidence and the politicians challenged on their continued use of that propaganda mantra?

      If not, why not?

    • MA @ 14:26:

      You really need to review the exhibits entered and just what the limits to the Inquires rules of evidence are – you have obviously missed alot. Details on Holyrood operations are available to the Commission – also what government or Nalcor claimed(s) in media has no bearing at the Inquiry, the Inquiry is about facts, not B$.

      It has been said several times ‘a political arena’ – it is essential for voters to understand that politicians are full of it prior to voting and figure facts for themselves, this is core to our democratic system and evidenced in the Inquiry that their statements don’t carry weight. Our voters obviously didn’t learn then – 2 terms re-elected with large majorities on a LCP platform, the population wanted MF and despite the findings thus far many still support the MF decision. To top it off, there is a decent chance our population will re-elect 6-7 politicians that voted for MF in 2010 – what will your argument be later this year when that happens?


    • So we know the members I have alluded to, have a review of the list (based on %ages in 2015 elevation, most/all are likely to be reelected):
      Paul Lane, Tom Osbourne, Keith Hutchins, Kevin Parsons, David Brazil, Tracey Perry

      I am not mentioning people like the currently elected Barry Petten (a DM at the sanction vote) or others likely to run that were Mf supporters for the DW band wagon in 2005-2012 period.

      As voters we never learn in this province.


    • So which exhibit states how many hours for the last 10 or 15 years that HLY operated at capacity.

      What constitutes HLY "operating at capacity"?

      Has the definition changed? If so, from what to what and when?

      If the Inquiry was only about 'facts', then it would have been over in the first week.

  3. T-y UG for your blog. Yes, only proves the bureaucrats reliance on their senior officers and, in turn, the "omnipotence" of scrutiny. The responses of Davis and Dalley demonstrate again, if what they say is true, that the executive officers of the Cabinet Secretariat and govt departments apear to have been both negligent and dishonest.
    From my perspective, it's fair game for politicians to be guided by their deputies for the latter have THE responsibility to ensure advice given is valid and sound and given only after full scrutinized.
    Hopefully the Commissioner will report on, and name, the "public" servants who failed to do their duty. S1.

  4. The second last paragraph sums it up.They did not want oversight that might hamper the grand plan.By the way, what was Davis smirking about when he was being questioned by Me.Urqhart of the Grand River Keeper,as he was looking in somebody else's direction.Seemed like he was saying "This is going to be easy."I also noted LeBlanc with almost the same expression when she got up to question Davis.

  5. What do UG readers think of Pat Hussey?
    I saw a small portion of his testimony, but I am told he was essentially a "buyer" yet equates his knowledge to engineers, of which there are many fields of expertise. And too, given SNC's present difficulties, Hussey seemed anxious to jump on the bandwagon: SNC was incompetent, not Nalcor( nor Husseys's part in that). SNC the scapegoat? We need to hear from SNC, who, though involved in criminal activity on other projects, still had considerable experienced engineering talent. Recall too SNC's big risk assessment that Nalcor wanted buried, (instructed to keep in draft form), and permitted Martin to say he never received it!

    • During his period SNC Lavalin was spraying money in every direction that needed greasing. For some reason nobody has asked if the same thing happened in NL that happened in Montreal or Libya in this time frame.

      Do people fear the answer?

    • Rather unconceivable that SNC to have made such a risk assessment, and then still expect to make considerable "fraudulent" profits later if MF went ahead.

      Currently, it's obviously opportunistic to use SNC as a scapegoat. It solves everyone's problems – until a real MF criminal investigation kicks in.

    • Come on Ex-mil, you are not going to try and defend the antics of SNC-Lavalin, are you? As Maxime Bernier said in NL this week, no company should be above the law, just ask the Chinese! However I must agree that neither SNC-Lavalin nor Astaldi is responsible for the Muskrat Falls fiasco. They are mostly home grown NLers, each and every one of them.

    • Winston just did. Another fluff piece, Bruno. These writers influenced by the power companies to prop up their pilot projects.
      1. A month or more ago i said there is some potential for storage like Tesla Powerwall for houses, but it is expensive, these for 10 houses is 15,000 each,plus engineering overhead costs for this pilot. They also have a large substation battery, not cheap.
      2, Largely uneconomic and provides little power, you can get the same power from a 600 dollar gas generator, but needs gas to operate.
      So, it stores wind power or solar power, but how much power for how long? The houses are heated by oil! So it supplies power to the fossil fuel furnace, really green. Some USA NE states trying this approach, experimental basis.
      4. NS now with 600 MW of wind, NL with 54 MW! And NS wind anchored by the ML with Nfld Hydro generators, then they sell us back wind energy as we, Nalcor, have given away our own to them, via anchoring! That's the hidden story here.
      Conslusion: Bruno still can NOT DO ARITHMETIC. So, do a piece for UG, and the prise goes up from 500 to 600, if your piece makes economic sense. Promising technology, but yet almost no uptake:peanuts. Why can you never see that? As of yet , much like Peckfords Pickle Palace. A fully charged electric car in your driveway has much more storage capacity, in case of a power failure. But I do not discourage you, as is is slowing moving forward, but for the big picture, not exciting yet. Remember electric cars existed a century ago, but only now getting economic.

    • Right on Winston, your Number 4 really sums it. And you couldn't make this shit up, and those iodits still say muskrat was and is a good thing… All in denial, whereas the nuts should all be in jail or the nuthouse. One could say, maybe a lot of work went into muskrat, but all for nothing, it was better to be moving rocks around for a make work project, at least the money would have all stayed in the province, whereas the money was spent world wide, from India to Iowa and all points in between. As a province we should be ashamed to mention muskrat power project, or the lower Churchill or even the word Nalcor. We will be for ever known as the greatest failed hydro project and those buggers sit on the stand with their chest puffed out in defiance . Nothing to be proud about for sure says Joe blow.

    • Bruno, our power loss is about 2.8 hrs per year, if power reliability on the grid is up to snuff. I have a keracene back up heater now over 15 years old, and 2 -3 gal containers of fuel, all in original cartons, never used. During DarnNL I bought a small generator, used it once for about 4-5 hrs, and not since.
      So, a backup Tesla Powerwall at 15 grand, may be obsolete and not work if sitting there for 15 years and of no purpose. Warranty is not for that long. 15 grand if hooked to power from the grid. If your own solar panels, add many thousands more. For a modest house off grid, solar plus battery bout 50 grand. Like this Tesla, not intended for nor capable of electric baseboard heat or hot water.
      So, of solar, battery, and wind, only wind has good economics for our island grid here. If we had 400MW nameplate, averaging 200 MW, it would be heavenly, to complement some CDM for a made in Nfld New Green Deal. For that , maybe we need to take back our wind anchoring we gave to NS as a freebie.
      So, who is blind Bruno, you are blinded with Musk's PR ( as you do not analyse systems to suit climates).
      Let me know when Antarctic stations operate from solar, wind and battery only. They get the same sun as Arizona, but a little longer wait, of 6 months for the sum to rise and set.
      Frankly Bruno, your ideas are often off the wall, as bad as Nalcor, as to economics. But you call it vision. Vision is fine, but how long to get there? JFK did the moon landing in 10 years or less. MFs was to be operating 2 years ago, your emperor's vision.
      How long will it be before 50% of the world is operating off solar, wind and batteries? Will you or me likely live to see it? Now we have Growler to apply ocean current electricity for isolated Nfld communities in the Strait of Belle Isle. Show me the economics, that it is not too a Pickle Palace?
      A good vision should have a good plan that has good economics too.
      Your vision is through rose colored glasses, Bruno. And even if the vision has merit, there must be government policy to get there,to adapt new good technology.
      So Ball's WAY FORWARD:CLIMATE CHANGE, read it and show me the plan, how it goes with your vision? Not a word from you on that, and you an environmentalist? You use fuzzy math and therefore promote fuzzy visions too, I suggest.

    • Well Bruno, according to a an Alberta CBC story people are actually afraid to talk about Climate Change, it is just too uncomfortable.
      Also under the Trudeau carbon tax plan imposed on on the four provinces who have not signed on, the tax is being fed back to people on their income taxes credits this spring, and before the fall election.
      I think we too should not have signed on, and had the tax imposed, so that people not polluters benefit. The amount being returned varies from 250 to 600 dollar a year. This amount will increase in years going forward.
      Will Ball's plan return this much to Nflders with his plan, or nothing at all?

    • Many engineers in the MF fiasco have forgotten why they have that little piece of steel wrapped around their pinky finger. Me thinks it is cutting off circulation to their brain's.
      Politicians on the other hand know exactly what they don't know, would anyone like to trade their pensions or positions with Davis , Daley or any of the ministers in the Ball or Williams Governments.
      The only people who really don't know that they don't know are we dumb newfies who keep voting for these morons.

    • The MF fiasco was not contrived and cheer-led by engineers. You need to look at the political types, legal guys and other gals. Engineering may have failed in terms of cost and schedule cover-up but the folks who led us down the garden path were premiers, economics types and oil tycoons/wannabee CEO's and their carefully picked and limited boards of directors.

  6. It seems a carbon tax that ramps up, could see 1000 dollar or more returned to residents per year. The Feds seems to want, appropriately that this tax come back to residents. There are many ways to do that, even for household efficiency improvements to reduce power bills.
    Yesterday on NTV a croud of stakeholders,so called environment types, seemed to applaud Ball's Nothing Burger Plan that seems little more that a PR stunt, with no assurances of serious measures with performance measures and verification. The Plan acknowledges failure of our last climate change plan, making it harder to do catch up.
    And Tories here seem not to want can carbon tax at all, and the NDP silent. And the "enlightened" UG readers here , even brutal Bruno, are as silent as mice on this issue. UG: opinions on politics that bite! Climate change and carbon tax is one issue that can bite back, so all, it seems are under the cone of silence.
    Winston Adams

    • Tories, generally have taken on the well funded petroleum industry's denial of climatic change action:


      NL Tory minded interests, (A lot are "Liberals"), have bought in to the "No carbon tax lobby". You should take note when voting that both main parties have subscribed to this program. The current dissention within the Fed Liberal party is an illustration. Where is "Truth to Power" happening in NL?

    • Yes Bruno, the NDP woke up, but still half asleep.
      As you know Synapse is now big on what minisplits can do here for energy reduction and, if they have expertise, will also conclude for grid peak demand reduction.
      In 2012, prior to MF sanction, my emails to world class Wade Locke, showed he had no time to read my 8 page submittal on HP technology for Nfld.
      So I emailed Gerry Rogers, prior to the House debate,as she too spouts her concern for the poor and high cost heating. Rogers response was that she would "pass it along to her leader, Lorraine", who never responded to me, nor brought it to anyone's attention.
      Now 6 years later, and 12.7 billion in debt on MF, maybe an all party mitigation committee will yell for rebates for the poor for minisplits, and insulation, least they get cold and sick, unable to pay power bills. Nothing like a committee, what is their own party position and policy plans? They have none.
      NDP WOKE UP? Rather late. Concern for the poor? Laughable.
      And Bruno, provide details of your lobbying for carbon taxes and rebates for the poor. Not on this blog, unless I missed it.

  7. I really expected more from Daley and Davis. They're also supported by senior government officials DM's ADM's etc,. To state that they were not fully informed in my view is dubious. If they truly were unaware and no one did the due diligence to obtain the information from them it is unacceptable. Perhaps this is a direct result of political appointments to senior positions where merit is only a secondary factor. In my view it is not an adequate excuse to state they were uniformed. If any of these senior officials are still around they should also be held accountable.

  8. Alison Coffin is now leader of the provincial NDP. Her economic colleague and boss? at the university is none other than Wade Locke who was paid handsomely in supporting the Muskrat fiasco. What will be her take on the project now that it has been shown to be ill-conceived(or contrived) and will be a millstone around the necks of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for decades to come, if not a century.

  9. Ex Nfld Hydro engineer Fred Wilcox thinks he has been barred from UG comments, but if so, I can't imagine why. He was an associate of mine there in the 70s, and there into the 1980s. He had a few posting here which I found interesting , and hoped for more of his views and input as to generation planning issues, peak load issues, CDM, etc. He has been following the Inquiry closely from his residence in BC, the province of choice also of enginner Robert Holmes.
    I suggested he may have a problem sending emails,and not barred, or if some glitch somewhere. He did have computer problems, and got a new one, but still the UG problem.

  10. The Telly is trying to copy CNN. The online screen is taken up almost entirely, all RED screen with words BREAKING NEWS.
    This about Hopedale, 3 lines. The last breaking news from Hopedale was in 1918, a century ago, when the Spanish Flu hit. The full story of that outbreak along the Labrador coast became known in a book in 2018.
    There was another breaking news story from Hopedale area in 1939, but that was suppressed, and not even yet public. 50 men was stranded in the area, and barely got back before ice freeze up. The captain who went after them was himself left stranded, having to spent the whole winter in the area,though he got all but 2 back to the island,just before Xmas. Adams went after the other 2 was were 50 mile inland of Hopedale, into Indian, Naskaupi, territory. The captain was Esau F Adams, whose assets meanwhile were being seized and auctioned off on the St John's waterfront. It was not breaking news. It was wartime, and went unnoticed.
    Hopedale was short on food. Some later said Adams saved that part of Labrador that year, with his food supply. One of the other 2, also saed was the guy who later saved dozens on the 5000 ton freighter Langleecrag, in 1947, Harold Kelloway, via the small Crosbie owned whaler boat, where large USA and British ships failed.
    So, this latest breaking news……Guess Wolf Blitzer will give more detail tonight, as the Telly can't afford to send a reporter.
    Winston Adams

    The headlime reads: "Overall, Efficiency Nova Scotia seems to be leading the pack when it comes to the extent of free service"
    The mere 3 limes again says little, a teaser, I guess, but mentions LED lights and shows a photo of lights. The piece is by Joe Gibbons.
    To continue reading it says you must subscribe to the Telly for 4.99 a month, which after 3 months is 14.99 a month.
    This is truly BREAKING NEWS, because, while I have referenced Efficiency Nova Scotia here on the UG blog for years, and now Synapse cites them as a leading Canadian entity for Energy Efficiency for customers, the Telegram has completely ignored ENS for the past 6 years or longer.
    Why now the is ENS of interest? Does the piece talk of more than LEDs to make them leaders?
    Can some UG snoop, who subscribes, inform UG readers, including me, of Joe Gibbons insights into ENS?
    As to 4.99 a month? That's a lot of money for me, but I would pay it, if I thought I was to receive considerable PREMIUM CONTENT from the Telly writers. Even 14.99 a month is not bad if the content is really PREMIUM.
    For the Telly to say they have Premium content is one thing, but better if others say so.
    UG, I find, has Premium Content in their pieces. And that costs nothing to readers. Nor do the writers boast that their content is Premium.
    Now I know much about ENS, so I doubt if I will learn anything new from JG that I see as premium. Will they cite COLD CLIMATE minisplits, which is ignored by Take Charge?
    Somehow Joehe got the GREEN light to write in an headline, the words; EFFICIENCY NOVA SCOTIA. A first is it not? Too bad they didn't do this pre MFs sanction. Why now?
    Winston Adams

    • Thanks, Barb Sweet…..she maybe write on court proceedings? If on EE, and ENS one might expect an in depth piece from Ashley Fitzpatrick. "Absolutely" this a subject she told me she was interested in….that in 2012…..seems to have skipped her mind.
      Ed Hollett has a good piece on biases of writers etc, referenced the TELLY. deep dive etc, and fake news.Also he comments on those who refer to "my truth, my facts, " attitudes, which reminds me of Bruno and his views on solar and batteries for Nfld, his opinion without analysis.
      Engineers generally use science and proven methods for truth. So if I say a minisplit can deliver a COP of 2.7 at -17 C here, and I say it is true, I expect others to be able to repeat the observation and to do so, so it is not just my truth, others can confirm it or refute it.
      Sad for MFs, much was not truth, but opinions,and truth often changed or edited, for forecasting, loads, risks, alternatives, least cost etc……..little truth in any of it. So a stain on the profession, I suggest. And allows Bruno, with "his truth" to malign what good engineering should do. Bruno himself often offers half truths.
      The whole truth is a very high bar, for anyone.

    • Bruno, wind has proven itself as effective for many areas, despite being variable, is now low cost Batteries is relatively expensive, and can storage only for a few hours, so like having a V8 with a cup full of gas. That can add some benefit in a few places at present. So batteries havea long way to go ;ALMOST NO UPTAKE .LOOK IT UP . You avoid facts.
      For Nfld wind can mostly be used in real time., without batteries…follow the st johns air port climate data, the wind all today 40 mph in the morning, increased to 47 and slowly dropped to 23 at present. Wind to die for. Likely much cheaper to store wind with house auxilary hot water storage, heated at discount rates. Water holds more heat than any other known substance. I think that is true, but if not , correct me.

    • Bruno, I commented on that piece Mar 4, @ 14;45 and @ 17;31, and I said you can not do arithmetic ( and I repeat that now) and you replied, now you reference the same old story from 1 day previous.
      Lost you mind or memory or what?
      I suggest you google 'List of Energy storage projects" around the world, and see the pitiful time frame of storage especially with batteries,
      This this suggest your busted? Or can never admit your wrong , especially for Nfld situation : Heracles tell Bruno it is a Peckford Pickle Palace.
      I will increase the prize for your written submission to UG, 1000 words,(your proof of good economics for Nfld) by 100.00 every time you mention batteries.

    • Better Bruno to find out why Hatch misled on their wind study report for Nfld, to give Nfld Hydro want they wanted, and that aided the boondoggle to advance by ruling out wind as a valued alternative component. The battery obsession is a distraction to get at the root cause of MFs boondoggle. The Inquiry has not questioned the Hatch conclusions.
      Jerome Kennedy initiated another wacky idea 1300 MW of wind and battery for 17 billion , to throw off the real value of wind.

  12. And now here we have this Graham Letto individual, yet another blathering, dimwitted fool of an NL politician in the grand tradition of blathering, dimwitted NL politicians who know just enough to be dangerous.

    No wonder this province is so royally f*ckered… with the likes of colossal idiots such as this in positions to render decisions.. or not.


    • I reached for a barf bag when I watched that video earlier today. Letto is another procrastinator like the rest of the Libs. I don't now who is pulling on whose puppet strings, but the whole government, including the feds, appears paralyzed with any decision making and instead feed us pure crap as if we were all idiots. All they want to do with anything is "consult". Well – news flash – there will be a consultation in November – and you may not like the results.

    • Letto is one of those turncoat political opportunists too… he ran as a Tory in 2003 and 2005, couldn't make a go of it with that crowd so he two-timed with the Ball Liberals in 2015.

      Real trustworthy, dependable type of guy there… yeah right. The best thing that could happen to him is for voters in his riding give him the boot and deprive him of a pension. What a joy that would be, saving NL taxpayers thousand$ in pension payouts to that bloody fool.

  13. I am looking for articles on how Muskrat Falls will affect the environment. Negatively or positively. My daughter is studying for her engineering degree and has an assignment to do on this topic. I have read articles here on Uncle Gnarley but can't find the specific ones. Thanks

    • Barbara @ 09:45:

      Have her start as Nalcor's website, the Inquiry website and the PUB website.

      She will get information overload on this topic if not careful – I am not sure what her submission emails, but it is a very indepth topic and she will need to be careful in filtering information.