Monday, 15 October 2018

WILLIAMS TAKES WRONG PATH TO REDEMPTION


Danny Williams' inability to address the issues raised in the Grant Thornton Forensic Audit or answer for why the Commission of Inquiry is unable to find any detailed analysis performed by his Administration on the Muskrat Falls project seems not to have inspired in himself even a moment of reflection. Rather, he returned to the Inquiry evidently for his pound of flesh as early critics, David Vardy and Ron Penney, sat in front of the Commissioner, too.
Williams could be seen lurking on the sidelines, the former Premier still hoping that some of his dignity might yet be salvaged. He was waiting for his brother, Tommy, to land a few body blows on Vardy and Penney. He left disappointed. 
Observing Tommy brought to mind a well-known citation attributed to Napoleon, one I had hoped our legal counsel would be mindful of. A paraphrasing of the adage might read: never interrupt your adversary when he is in the process of self-destruction. 
It was the Commissioner, however, who wisely intervened, perhaps saving Williams from himself. “I'm not too concerned about all the personalities involved,” said Judge LeBlanc adding, “I don't know what all the love-hate relationships are, and to be quite honest with you I don't really care about that.”

Who could argue?
Tommy Williams, acting as legal counsel for his brother and other former NL Government officials, excluding Premier Dunderdale, was loudly complaining that Uncle Gnarley had not joined the Vardy/Penney Panel. 
Strangely, moments later Danny was telling the media: “I'm suggesting that the credibility and the weight of the testimony of Mr. Vardy and Mr. Penney is basically insignificant.” The former Premier added: “They're not megaproject experts. They're not experts in anything that's really particularly relevant to this inquiry.”
It's tough for even Danny Williams to have it both ways.  
Stepping back from the mayhem that the Williamses had engendered, it might be worth stating that every word I have ever uttered relating to Muskrat has appeared on this Blog. It is all in the public sphere. Vardy and Penney, on the other hand, have written significant interventions directly to the provincial and federal governments, and made submissions to the PUB during the DG2 reference. It made sense that the pair would have an opportunity to bring some of those, and the analysis each bears, to light.
For my part, I am left to assume that both Danny and Tom were among the very late group of Uncle Gnarley readers which often catapults the Blog’s pageview counter into overdrive. Can it be that the two have become so enthralled with narratives like “In Praise of Public Floggings” and “The Limits of Partisanship” that they crave to hear more?
Tommy Williams’ finest moment might have been when he attributed a quote from the public floggings article to Dave Vardy.  He was forced to beat a hasty retreat, having been informed of his error. Of course, he had no apology! 
In his parting interview with the press, Danny was critical in two instances of the comments Vardy and Penney had made in answering questions.
The first was a reaction to Vardy’s reference to what rural residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are doing to reduce electricity, which is to burn wood for heat. Mr. Williams asked if Mr. Vardy realized that wood couldn’t replace electricity. Imagine Mr.Williams not having heard of the invention of the wood stove.
The second related to a comment that Ron Penney made about the end of the Upper Churchill contract in 2041 and whether the mechanism of expropriation should be employed. Williams would know that the issue is both complicated and moot, too. It is possible that his mistaken expropriation of the Abitibi Grand Falls Mill – which left the Feds with a large bill after valuation and the Province another one for demolition and environmental clean-up – still weighs. 
But to the point, the worry is that, for Williams, the exposures from the Inquiry are less about the facts than about scoring petty victories. 
Whatever we make of Napoleon’s wisdom, or lack of it, he likely knew that his failures would eventually cause him to meet his Waterloo. 
A society suffering from failed leadership in the 19th century, as much as in the 21st, will exact a price. There are no exemptions, even for Mr. Williams.
Still, a little humility from one whose boastful days are covered in dark clouds, his legacy project now earning the tortuous scrutiny of a Judge, might still engender forgiveness from his once adoring hordes. 
While the prospect seems unlikely, Danny Williams should wonder why, after $12.7 billion and the promise of a doubling of power rates without subsidy, he deserves any forbearance at all.

69 comments:

  1. Ha!

    Like the malignant narcissist south of the border, the Williams will never admit a mistake or make apologies!

    It will be a hilarious listening to the bluster and self promotion as the problems with commissioning and heaven forbid with the spur escalate in the next two years (and the price balloons to north of 15 billion).

    The Trump examples of the tragic disconnect from reality (see hurricane Maria) is the model we will see in NL from the MF principals.

    Sad!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes being called before the judge, to account for some of your misdeeds, in the 13$ billion boondoggle, and possible solvency of the province, is a part of the public flogging. There is one thing I hope the judge, or I should say he hopes he will not allow in his court room, and that is mirrors or vidio, so that some of these guys and gals cannot see themselves in real time. As that security guy on the door is going to be pretty busy, calling in the dienfection brigade, in cleaning up the mess of those pukers. Every time they see their own faces, they will have to heave up, gravel will not do the the trick. Maybe the judge will have permanent barff bags installed at the appropriate locations, says Joe blow.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And is Tommie also a big wig the the Tory Party?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I suppose today we will see the splendid expertise of Nalcor's Board of directors which Danny had input.
    All no doubt world class with magnificant qualifications and experience, expecially with hydro mega projects. Some with expertise in quick clay, some for methyl mercury, some with First Nations constitutional rights, some with stability issues with wind exceeding 10% of the island peak, some with best practise forecasting models, and issues of elasticity, econometrics, end-use, technology change factor, interactive effect, ice loading issues, and woodstove expertise, and all independent of politics. For technical competence three are engineers: one electrical, one mechanical, one civil, and one economist.
    Kate will lead off with their background, as to their expertise.
    WA

    ReplyDelete
  5. Funny enough, Danny personifies that big mansion of his perfectly. On the outside, a strong and impressive structure, but on the inside lives only a sad, angry little man.

    ReplyDelete

  6. I don’t know about anyone else, but I find it offensive, also poor taste, that Tommy Williams would even be permitted to be legal counsel for Danny Williams and other PC Party officials!

    The man is the brother of Danny Williams, and a former president of the PC Party here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

    The optics of Tommy actually being paid with taxpayer dollars to now represent his own brother (Danny) at this Inquiry is distasteful at best!

    You talk about literally rubbing salt into the wounds of all of us!

    Again, I guess it only confirms the “me first” attitude of Danny Williams that we have seen on full display over his years both inside and outside of politics!

    An old phrase always comes to mind: “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear!”

    Needless to say, I had originally thought that the Muskrat Falls Inquiry was going to be a fairly mundane process, that is now gone out the window!

    My only hope is that Justice LeBlanc will see through the “Williams Gong Show” that is on full display at the Inquiry!

    Personally I do have faith in Justice LeBlanc, I have always found him to be a no BS kind of person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree 1000%. The fact that Tommy Williams is receiving money from the public purse. Sickens me. And is an insult to us all.

      Delete
  7. our own home-grown Ozymandias

    ReplyDelete
  8. So now we are informed that the Board was intentionally kept frustrated and weak, with respect to Project Management expertise..... Get er done boys. Hoping that the contract admin files are secure and will be brought forward sometime soon. Stan, where is your project cost management report and forecast to complete analysis?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Let the butt covering begin!

    The Nalcor board coached by co-council, will spend 2 days absolving themselves of blame for the MF disaster. No confirmation bias here they bleat.

    Well if the board did their job and were underpaid for their gallant service! OK then Who Done It?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Appearance of Board "Rubber Stamp" style. No project cost management expertise at this level. Who was project certifier; (Budget Allocations, Contract Commitments, Change Orders, Allowance for Changes, Contingency)? Who approved Project Manager dismissing Prime consulting risk management role, (SNC-Lavalin), and assuming role as Owner?

      Delete
  10. Fantastic piece of work Uncle..."Every puppy has its day and every doggy has their way, but everybody has to meet their waterloo...'''

    ReplyDelete
  11. Significant new parties with standing.

    See https://www.muskratfallsinquiry.ca/files/20181009-Application-for-Standing-Paddon-and-Stanley.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MA @ 16:51:

      Not surprising, I suspect it is a sign of diverging communities of interest. More to come like this - though I do want to see the argument as to why they should have late independent standing - there would have to be an admission of diverging interests.

      I'd also take this as an initial sign that we are getting value from the Inquiry.

      PENG2

      Delete
    2. Today's testimony, along with this new development, is encouraging.

      And I think the best (or worst), depending on one's point of view, is yet to come.

      Delete
  12. The Board was continuously short-handed and members underpaid. Govt couldn't find qualified persons to serve. First two that comes to mind, and probably more qualified than those serving, Vardy and Penny. But they would have to be approved by Danny first. Any chance of that? And could have saved us billions, and they would have worked for peanuts. Cheers, average Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Danny went on and on and on about how Quebec did everything in their power to stand in our way. Emphasizing multiple times about how they were extremely hard to deal with. And that any issue had to be heard in their courts. Why then would he consider continuing with this project with no Water Management Agreement in place? Does that decision alone wreak of incompetence and recklessness? History will be unkind to Danny and his cronies. And deservedly so.
    dm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi DM,

      Indeed, DW was not listening his own words on that one.

      What he referred to as being unreasonable / unfair / inequitable about Qc - HQ was things like:
      --UC power does have priority in HQ's transmission lines and not the power from new to built power plants of LC

      This is the decision from the Régie de l'Énergie DW said it was the worst decision he ever saw.

      --That a new 735 Kv lines from LC to Ontario / USA would cost about 3 billions

      One of the many ways he said we tried to block the project; here by giving the actual real price tag...

      --That from now on, UC should be operated as a run-of-the-river type of hydro plant instead of a plant with reservoir

      This is the "Block Theory" that is now in Court of Appeal in Qc and is schedule for December. CFLCo argues that HQ is entitled only to monthly blocks of power of equal size every month. As such, for HQ to receive the complete quantity of power provided for in the Power Contract, UC must run at a steady rate all year long, basically like a run-of-the-river plant and wasting the entire capacity of the Smallwood reservoir.

      But should he persists to consider that Qc - HQ was unreasonable in these positions (and others), he should really not have taken for granted that he would obtain this Water Management Agreement.

      Delete
    2. Quite well illustrated Heracles.

      And while confining UC as a run-of-the-river type of hydro plant, DW was ok with having MF using UC’s reservoir at will. (Via that scheme of sending MF’s power to UC / HQ’s grid, and then drawing it back when needed).

      I’ll refrain from using qualifiers here… But I’m curious, how is he in his personal business transactions, and with his business partners? Is it always a win – lose attitude and nothing less?

      Delete
    3. Hi Ex-mil,

      Actually, for the Block Theory, it would be a lose - lose. Under the renewed contract, HQ pays a fix annual price calculated on the average annual capacity of the power plant, no matter how much energy is taken from the plant on any year. Under this block theory, HQ would pay the same price but for less power, so would pay more than what was agreed in the contract.

      HQ would lose the flexibility of the Smallwood reservoir but for not loosing power, HQ would need to ask for the central to run at its average capacity all the time. As such, the reservoir would not have any opportunity to replenish, so no storage for either UC or LC. There would even be risks of shortage in years of low hydrology.

      Their idea was to take back control of the reservoir and hope that HQ would not take its full amount of power in summer time, leaving them with enough water for next winter, so they were looking for a Win - Lose.

      To mitigate its own lost, HQ would run the power plant at its average, with the effect of ruining CFLCo's Win part. At the end, this Block Theory is a Lose - Lose and that is why it was rejected in Superior Court. There is no way such a Lose - Lose was the intention of the parties when they signed the contract.

      Delete
  14. On FRiday, I think, there was discussion on wind and some charts, maybe from the Hatch report. It showed the result of adding wind and the reduction of thermal generation at Holyrood. The reductions were modest.
    There was not much chance to analyse the info as it was displaced briefly, ( and there was objection that it be displaced at all).
    But I seemed to gather that the base case showed Holyrood producing about 30% of the total load, and then each wind addition reducing that.
    Since then I seemed to recall Maurice's graphics for Holyrood, with 30 % used a long time a ago and recently 13 %
    I just checked those graphics and 30 % was about 2002 year, and thenn a steep decline, and down to 13 % before 2010 and well before sanction.
    The point being: if you take the base case as 13 % instead of 30%, then the addition of wind has much more effect to minimise Holyrood production.
    WOuld need to check the Hatch chart to see of this was intentionally misconstrued to detract from wind benefits. Also wind then was costed at 7.5 cents.
    Can Maurice's spider sense,or PENG2, check this out and let us know?
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. should read displayed, not displaced

      Delete
    2. The addition of wind power needed to be developed in parallel with electricity storage. There are several methods which have matured since the boondoggles inception:

      1) Battery grid storage. It is now a common practice in parts of the world to install battery storage along with wind.

      2) Pumped Hydro. There are several sites in the province where this is viable and one hydro site(Cat Arm) actually has this capability. It is expensive but still much cheaper than the Boondoggle. One method being used in the USA is to convert abandoned coal mines into pumped storage. Bell Island comes to mind here as well as St Lawrence-also home to a second wind farm.

      3) Gravity Storage. It entails rising large weights to a height and then releasing it to turn a generator. Very effective when installed near a substation.

      4) Flywheel storage. The state of New York has one installed and the beauty of it is that it can store and release energy without actually stopping the rotation-very effective for smoothing out the effects of varying wind speeds.

      Delete
    3. I don't think storage was a necessity, but can be an asset. The existing wind farm works well without storage.
      Can someone say which exhibit is the Hatch wind study?
      Winston

      Delete
    4. WA @ 9:08:

      Not sure if its an exhibit or if this is the report you are looking for:
      https://muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Hatch-Report-Wind-Integration-Study.pdf

      Wind ToR:
      https://muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Terms-of-Reference-MHI-Wind-Analysis.pdf

      And the ice study:
      https://muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Muskrat-Falls-Ice-Study-2013-Update-Final-Report-Hatch.pdf


      PENG2

      Delete
    5. WA @ 9:08:

      This is the MHI review of Hatch:
      https://muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Report-MHI-Review-of-wind-study-for-Isolated-Island.pdf


      PENG2

      Delete
  15. This is a quote from the MF inquiry:
    "The fact this group stuck around for a dozen years indicated that we weren't in it for the money," Marshall said.

    What a load of Bull Crap. At the inquiry they bemoaned the fact that they were underpaid for 12 years but they never quit either and this tells me they were in it for the Good of the Williams administration and not for the good of the province. If they didn't like compensation paid they could have resigned but like all good businessmen they had alternative motives and one being to stay on the good side of the powers to be to sweeten further deals that might arise from such a relationship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW they weren't long resigning when Cathy Bennett started questioning the whole project along with the CEO and the board members. Can't have their reputations and poor decisions aired in public now can we.

      This whole inquiry has been turned in to an attempt to shine the reputations of leaders of this province who made bad decisions and then covered up their mistakes. The inquiry itself is nothing more than a coverup.

      Delete
    2. CBC reports this morning that the former board criticized the PUB as incompetent. Right now it appears that the PUB at the time of sanction were one of the few groups or individuals associated with this project who were competent.

      Delete
    3. The board members seemed to be more concerned with what their pay was rather than the state this province is in because of Muskrat Falls.

      Delete
    4. The bottom line is from this crowd of nalcor cronies, and govt. hell bent yakkies of the past decade (mainly 2003-2013) the worst decade in our history and the highest oil revenues, they were on a cool aid binge party. The worst time the province was governed by nalcor-govt. in our history. 5 premiers from Danny, Dunderdale, Marshall, Davis, and Ball all muskrat falls hell bound, dam the torpedoes. They lied, contrived, manipulated, divided, mis-managed, and blinded by $ signs to the brink of destruction. They were completely out of control high on oil and gas sniffers. Hopefully they will take a little time to get their feet on the ground, take a little legal pot and realize the errors of their ways and get back to a some sanity. Can this inquiry aid in this objective and become real again. Hopefully in the next few years this can be achieved, and power will not be an albatross around our necks and the center of attention, but simply done as the mandate of the PUB. Cheers, average Joe.

      Delete
    5. VOCM this morning says the Nalcor board became experts over a long period of time. This must be the most expensive training program for board members in world history. With all the mistakes made and lessons learned on Muskrat we should now become a center of excellence for world class company board governance.

      Delete
    6. 12 years and the project has thus far doubled in costs, don't pat yourself on the back too much Kenny just because you weren't given a salary you think you are off the hook for Boondoggle Falls? Nalcor BoD were all PC agents and partisan hacks, put there BECAUSE of their inexperience and lack of everything for a hydro/utility/megaproject - their reputations now in tatters cause they were co-driving and had a front seat for the projects destruction of NL.

      Delete
  16. This morning's conversations tend to confirm that the whole Muskrat Affair was pre-ordained well before sanction; irrespective of other information brought forward as to risks and options.

    Don't you all see the importance of Energy Resource Policy and Planning in Nl from say the early 80's, Hibernia sanctioning?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Board Members now getting frustrated once faced with serious questions that exposes their own incompetence. Where as the kid glove approach of
    Kate's easy questions gave them confidence of actions being just fine.
    Imagine , even now they say they would sanction if no FLG, adding more than a billion or billions to the already 12.7 billion.
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the 4 buckos on the stand, all at one time, is fine for Kate or co council, as an intro, and overall view. But when it comes to serious and focused, indepth questioning, then it is better to have questioning with one only one on the stand at a time. As the question goes to all four for each to respond, sometimes with yes or no. So like the three musketeers now... they all respond with the same answer. But if being questioned one at a time on the stand then I suspect their answers and responses would diverge. But I also call them as I see them (although I missed some evidence) I don't think Bud is very focused, but rather a shotgun approach, yes he may hit them all, but may not be very effective, and diluted questioning and responses. So remains to be seen I guess. Cheers, Joe blow.

      Delete
    2. AJ, the good guys have to throw mud and peel back the curtains to ensure the Commissioner sees the witness in appropriate light. It may be awkward but absolutely necessary.

      Delete
  18. Curious matters of today;
    Who is the other guy in the back with the heavy white moustache, near Socrates, I wondered. He gets called as the last witness. It is John Mallam. He says he started with Nfld Hydro in 1975, a mechanical engineer. I would have not recognised him, but knew him for a few months in 1975 , the year that I left. I remember him as a friendly and very competent technical guy, and an asset then for just things as the big plant at Holyrood. I do not know where is testimony is going yet.
    Part ways through, one of the documents shown has his initials:JM
    Immediately it clicked as to whether this could be the mystery man behind the PUB document in 2012 with the initials JM. I had ruled out Jigger Jim (Jim Morgan), who lacked the expertise to compose such a detailed document critical of MFs. It showed both a good understanding of economics and engineering, and I had wondered if had had been done by Nfld Power who had the resources to do such a professional submittal back then.
    So far Mallam speaks with assurance and straight forward no nonsense style, which jives with what I would expect of him. So we see him further tomorrow. Will he comment on CDM or a combination of isolated options as least cost?
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also of interest, the Nalcor PR document of some 300 pages, also aimed at Quebec and against local critics. Trust this gets posted and makes for interesting reading. The directors thought highly of it, which says a lot about the directors!
      WA

      Delete
    2. Mr. Mallam, with very respectable family roots, is at last an experienced cost engineer of the mechanical discipline, having a wealth of power generation and utility transmission knowledge and practice. What could possibly go wrong?

      Delete
    3. Hi Winston,

      That document (Nalcor's 300 pages) is P-130, listed in the exhibits of Sept 21st and the leveraging of Qc vs NL is at page 158 - 159.

      As observed and questioned by MFCCC's lawyer, how appropriate is it to blame a neighbour as an excuse to justify a project like MF ?

      Enjoy your reading,

      Delete
  19. Yeah right... those vile bastards are as thick thieves.

    As thick as thieves...

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/muskrat-board-williams-1.4865507

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just watching this mornings session. I would suggest that Gerry Shortall is well past his best before date as DW would say. It appears he was napping during board meetings. He knows little unless it's meaningless. Likely intentional. I found his comment somewhat humorous that he has seen no evidence that a P75 should've been used. Gerry. You are part of an Inquiry... looking to find out how a project you were approving got so out-of-control budget-wise. Isn't that evidence enough to prove Grant Thornton's assertion? This is cringeworthy.
    dm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right keep up the public floggings. But if shortfall is well past his best before date, then maybe it's like flogging a dead horse. Yes, that's right if he can't understand the p75, or said there was no need for it then he is part of the problem along with the other three dimwit stooges. The other guy was chair of the board for some time, and didn't even know it. My god, world class. And ken is still lost in the energy warehouse since dark NL.

      Delete
    2. Don't forget these wizards cost every person in this province 24,000 dollars. Even your 5 year old child and your 85 year old dad or grand dad and grand mom and they will collect it from their estate, if they can, if they don't live long enough to pay it before. The best laid plans of little men and mice, how much shame do they have, and would do it all over again, they say. They would do it all over again because it is the least cost option. Have they not heard that the boondoggle is now over 13 billion, not 6.

      Delete
    3. What is it about offering up one's public and patriot services for a $/year that brings home the adage; "You get what you pay for?"

      Delete
    4. @ anon.08:42....$24,000.00 ? now seems a bargain. Already lost that off my house value. Trying to sell, no interest. These dimwits were paid what they were worth....pocket change and lent.

      Delete
  21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan_turbine

    These are the turbines being used at MF. Interesting read. They are used in QC generation it appears and are suited to low head high flow situations. Note the talk about seals that prevent oil from getting into the river. I am uncertain if the MF units have variable pitch blades. It appears proven technology and the Andritz site notes the thousands of megawatts running globally already.

    ReplyDelete
  22. ...t-y U G for delivering another crippling blow to arrogance and furthering our/the pubic's understanding of events...

    ReplyDelete
  23. There you have it!! Despite the sage and technical advice of the pilot, the Titanic set off on course for the iceberg, with an inexperienced crew!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. AJ, Winston,

    You were asking about the consequences people from Qc may face after abusing the system they were in charge of. I told you that none would make it to as big as what happening in Newfoundland, that they would be expelled from everything, never be trusted again for any new responsibilities and that some indeed received jail time.

    Here, an ex-mayer released after his jail time is still unable to recover even his license as a real state agent. (link is in French ; you can use automated translation if you need...)

    https://www.msn.com/fr-ca/actualites/quebec-canada/michael-applebaum-peine-%C3%A0-reprendre-son-m%C3%A9tier-de-courtier-immobilier/ar-BBOtuqY?li=AAgh0dy

    ReplyDelete
  25. Witness John Mallam says that Holyrood is needed to produce about 20% of the island's energy needs.

    A May, 2011 email from Nalcor states in part:--

    "The net capacity of the Holyrood plant is 466 MW. From 2000 to 2010 electricity production has ranged from a low of 740 GWh in 2006 to a high of 2,385 GWh in 2002. The annual capacity utilization of Holyrood has therefore ranged from a low of 18% to a high of 58% during this period."

    On average from 2006 to 2015 Holyrood was needed to provide only an average of about 13% of the island's energy needs --- around 1,000 GWh per year (about 25% of Holyrood's maximum and 33% of its firm capacity).

    ReplyDelete
  26. Don't you all get the "grand seduction" which seems to have taken place?

    Abandon years of experience and knowledge regarding the project management of hydro developments and related utilities in favour of the petroleum industry EPC methodology, through imbedded sole source private contractors, who game the system by assuming higher Owner risk for profit in the private enterprise.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Don't know about anyone else's opinion, but Kate O'brien seemed to be doing a very good job (not to take away from the smooth and effective work that co-counsel Learmonth has done).

    Seems also that the MF project's Independent Project Review team was not all that independent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree Maurice. What is revealing is the absence of any strong cross examination of the star witness, Mallam. The petroleum based EPC steamroller which drove the project to sanction, is slowed to a crawl.

      Delete
    2. Didn't see any of the livestream today, only the NTV and CBC soundbites which is always a bit of a crapshoot. My takeaway is what a contrast from the board of directors. The board were self-declared experts who saw nothing wrong but today two guys with much better credentials challenged the least cost notion of Muskrat dead-on. Why didn't Nalcor heed their warning? Why didn't the board follow up on it? Why weren't these guys on the board?? It seems such criticism, or that of Vardy/Penney/Brunneau/etc was invariably ignored, buried or counterattacked. More examples to come no doubt.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps the lawyers are keeping their powder dry (one can always hope), but why didn't they, in cross examination, e.g, when a 2011 AMEC study reported that Holyrood's "operational" age was only about half its actual age (due to not operating at all times and hardly at all at capacity), and when the record shows that HLY only provides on average about 13% of the island's energy needs (not 20%), and when the witness said that if a turbine was added to the island's existing hydro site that it would only provide additional capacity but not more energy (when supposedly it was/is peak demand that is the island's problem --- not an energy shortage).

      I don't understand why such matters are let slide by.

      Delete
    4. Agree with you MA, "keep power dry...." Etc. Did you see my comment from yesterday, @ 17:54 and a reply @18:47.... From whom???? Just a guess, but I think someone was trying to tell me something....wondering who? What do you think. average Joe.

      Delete
    5. The MFCCC needs some engineering assistance to pick up on some of these issues. The only electrical engineer in the room is Kate O'Brein, and she is rather soft on them , is she not? She could easily show them up and expose the rot 10 fold, but if not for MFCCC and the CA, what kind of inquiry would it be? Is she supposed to be independent and neutral or to expose the false assumptions etc?

      Delete
    6. I agree with both AJ, especially the point about how some of these witnesses should have been on the stand separately (I agree, big difference in what might have been said).

      As to Buddon, while his approach seems less focused, I think in some respects his approach has been effective and he has been making some points that others have not.

      Delete
  28. Speaking of best before dates,some people should look in the mirror.Looks like thin skin sags easily.

    ReplyDelete
  29. John Mallam represents close to the best that can be offered from a project that appeared to be going out of control: too fast, inappropriate tempo with overbearing bureaucracy with little management control. And little integrated team approach. Oil and gas employees now seen as world class managers to manage a mega electrical generation, transmission, hvdc, submarine marine cables x 2, asynchronous electrical ties, in a skilled trade market that was questionable from the beginning to be able to source it in the aggressive schedule proposed. Has anyone suggested to compare MF schedule with that of approved Site C in BC. They run a similar timeline and size; Site C JRP was much more thorough in its authority and recommendations; but, more importantly, it had no time is of the essence as in isolated NL power situation portrayed that it needed power (MW) and energy (kwh) that it was running out of due to inflated electrical load forecast; and the threat that Holyrood thermal was tired and oil costs were going through the roof!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Just a couple of points: 1) the independent report by DO, JM etc. Appears to be adequate, it's what happened to the reports after they went to the gatekeeper? It was like thank you, and then put them on the shelf to gather dust. He just wanted to be able to say he followed the procedure.
    2) when it was suggested to JM that HLR was held to with bubble gum, he readily agreed. Then the AMEC, report, as MA pointed out was only half its real age. So which is it? Maybe, it's not very well maintained. Like a crappy house with good unused furniture. 3) when MFCCC was questioning JM on adding wind, and the difference between energy and power, he said very little wind could be added in summer time, bcease the power used was low, but in winter time, when the useage is high, can wind not be added to the system in the same percentage as in summer time. 4) yes agree there seems to be a lack of technical expertise in questioning some of those experts on the stand, especially the technical experts like JM. SO, unless that is beefed up, the gatekeeper will get a free pass and go away totally in tack. Cheers, Joe blow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Joe, as you ca appreciate, I am faced with my wife's health issues: a great success on chemo of reducing this liver tumor from 1 in to 1/2 half inch, so 80 % reduction in volume , and now only the size of a marble, so you might think out of the woods. But not so. Seems almost certain that we now go back to Davey Crocket country to get rid of this, and about 200.000.00 Us Funds cost. So I get behind on MF and missed Mallam's testimony, so good you follow it.
      PENG2 gave me the link for the Hatch wind report , and I read that last night while also assessing tumor situation, Making arrangement for that almost like a mini MFs, but to avoid the blunders if possible.

      As to wind: Hatch page 4-8 states; For loads expected by 2020, winter wind that was possible technically was 500 MW (we now have 54 MW). 225 to 300 MW was expected to be the limit for light load conditions, expected in summer time. But due to summer the loads would be about half the 500 Mw winter wind generation, so about 250 Mw of wind, this is close to the limit , so generally not a serious problem, and suits summer ok.
      So I. and Hatch at odds with Mallam.
      So during cold snaps and often windy too, 500 MW is fine and very beneficial in winter, and this gives half of that , about 250 Mw in summer , which is very useful.
      It seems that if gas turbines replaced Holyrood old thermal plant, which should happen. wind is even much more valuable, as the old units need to be fired up whether producing energy or not, and minimum is 70 MW each , so 225 for all 3, so Holyrood needing to be operating at almost half capacity reducing wind contribution. So much inferior to gas turbines. So the fact that Holyrood is seen only half its life is not important I suggest, as needs on going maintenance, low reliability and parts harder to get, and low efficiency , poor to coodrinate with wind, and poor to work with CDM . So for Holyrood old units : The death sentence. And save the rerubishment waste.
      Best application for wind for the isolated option has been a whitewash.
      Winston

      Delete
    2. Thanks Winston for your input at this very trying time for you and your family. You, might notice that I sometimes, reference MA rather than to you. As usual, you have my empathy, and wish you and your family the very best.

      Delete
    3. Guess you knew it was me, average Joe.

      Delete
    4. Actually MA has stated that the Holyrood units are only about half their life as to hours used,which is correct, but that is but one factor as they are essentially obsolete and no longer cost effective or worse ,as not reliable as Liberty says.
      But to offset holyrood by 6 or 13 billion! Crazy, Manipulationof studies to suit the tunnel vision.
      If PENG2 or others don't challenge me on my figures it suggests they have not assessed it or generally agree. I prefer they say I am off base if that is so. I'll add a little to th ewind issue as we go along. THis goes back to Straton and Bob on forecasting and planning. Lots of bias with them.
      Winston

      Delete