Monday, 11 March 2019

BEWARE FEDERAL SHAPESHIFTING ON ATLANTIC ACCORD, WARNS CABOT MARTIN

Guest Post by Cabot Martin
Hooray for Uncle Gnarley for he has saved me from the sloth of procrastination!

Nearly a week had passed since former Premier Peckford’s letter appeared in the Saturday March 2nd edition of the St. John’s Telegram and I was still mulling over an appropriate way to support his views; maybe phone Paddy; maybe a letter to the Telegram.

So when Uncle Gnarley phoned last Thursday to ask me to write something on the Atlantic Accord mess, it didn’t take any convincing at all.

So to A. Brian’s excellent letter.

I was most struck by his comment on a possible change in the Accord that would see us being demoted from “principal beneficiary” to ”primary beneficiary” – a big change in a key, supposedly entrenched right.


In a document like the Atlantic Accord, the specific words mean a lot – federal shape shifting is a threat. Ask any inshore fisherman who wonders what happened to our “adjacency” rights to our fish stocks which over the last few years have gone up in smoke.

Peckford asked the key question: “Does anyone realize how difficult it was to get this wording [principal beneficiary]?”

That has to be A. Brian’s most restrained statement ever.


Because it wasn’t just “difficult”, it was like crawling over broken glass; went on unrelentingly for 13 long years.

Throughout the 1970’s and to 1985, an intense fight with Ottawa for our offshore rights was the central issue in Newfoundland politics.

It’s a long story but a number of things immediately spring from memory:

-     In early days, of building a top notch petroleum geoscience/engineering team in a newly formed Petroleum Directorate led by a Dublin educated Trinidadian Steve Millan (sadly since passed) supported by Dutch petroleum economics/computer modeling wiz Dr Pedro Van Meurs and staffed by international oil company experienced Newfoundlanders, some of the first of a wave that you can now bump into in virtually every big oil or gas play globally.

-     of building a diverse legal team of Law experts from leading Universities: from Cambridge (Professor Geoffery Marston); Edinburgh (Professor William Gilmore) and from Oxford (Professor Daniel O’Connell) with help from Australian Michael Crommelin then comparing the Newfoundland and Australian offshore situations at UBC Law later Law Dean at Melbourne University.

-     the constant fight with the oil companies over their hiring policies to gain employment access for Newfoundlanders and a preference for Newfoundland supplied goods and services   

-     the unrelenting “make a deal; make a deal; make a deal now ” cries from the St John’s business community;

-     those long days in 1977/78 after the French led Labrador Group cancelled their multi-rig offshore Labrador drilling program rather than apply for a provincial permit under the 1977 Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Regulations with its strong Newfoundland first provisions. The oil company boycott ended in 1978;

-     the March 1, 1982 Ottawa / Nova Scotia offshore deal that broke up a shaky Newfoundland/Nova Scotia common front by promising Nova Scotia that if they signed separately now they would still get any additional rights and benefits that Newfoundland might obtain by hanging on for a better deal – we did do better so they picked up the benefits; 

-     that black day in March 1984 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Newfoundland’s legal case claiming ownership of the oil & gas on our continental shelf;

-     that great day around 1987 when, in face of the Hibernia Consortium's position that a Hibernia GBS was simply not feasible, we held an international Hibernia Platform Conference at the Knights of Columbus on St. Clare Avenue in St. John's, when the oil companies and some of the world's top offshore engineering companies were dragooned into presenting their Hibernia platform ideas in public; only the French company Doris was brave enough to say it could be done;

The fight was mostly with Trudeau the Elder whose arrogant, cold, calculated centralism, executed by Jean Chr├ętien as Federal Minister of Natural Resources, made our blood boil. Against them, we had a solid alliance with Alberta and on points of principal, strong support from Quebec in spite of our, at the same time, beating them over the head on the Upper Churchill.

There was a false dawn in the election of Prime Minister Joe Clarke in 1979 (a very decent man) whose short lived Government would probably have delivered on his promise of full offshore provincial ownership had it survived. His Alberta roots included strong memories of the 25 year long fight (from 1905 to 1930) needed to wrestle the ownership of Alberta’s onland oil & gas rights from Ottawa.

But it took the 1984 federal electoral victory and unique perspective of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, an Irish Quebecois, to give us the Accord  – less than what we were looking for but realistically as good a deal as we should have expected given a defeat in court and the many political and commercial pressures against us and the attitude of 90% of the Ottawa people we were dealing with.

Indeed, our Accord offshore rights are stronger than those achieved by any other constituent state or province in any other federation worldwide including the United States and Australia.

Every word of the Accord was contested, with each side aware of its critical importance. Accordingly, if Ottawa wants an Accord change they must first demonstrate how that change is an improvement for Newfoundland and not a derogation of our present rights. We cannot afford to go backwards.

And under Section 60 of the Accord, any change requires our consent. Section 60 reads:

60. Except by mutual consent, neither government will introduce amendments to the legislation or regulations implementing the Accord.

There was, of course, much celebration the day the Atlantic Accord was signed in St John’s on February 11, 1985.

I brought along a book on Arabian oil negotiations to one such event and all from the PM and Premier down signed with many good wishes as if we had all graduated together from High School.

As a measure of the previous tension, a key federal negotiator started off his contribution by writing “To Cabot who is no traitor …”

Yeah, things had been kind of tense.

I leave it to others to document the ground-breaking, spectacular, revolutionary, epoch making political, financial, technical and employment benefits achieved by virtue of the Atlantic Accord.

And to yet others to chronicle how successive Provincial governments have failed to properly use its powers under the Accord to gain yet more benefits especially with respect to natural gas development. 

Or whether Ottawa has lived up to Section 49 of the Accord :

“49. The Government of Canada shall establish in the province, where possible, regional offices with appropriate levels of decision-making for all departments directly involved in activities relating to the offshore area.”

Full, as they say these days, disclosure.

From 1972 to 1979, I was Legal Adviser to the Minister of Mines and Energy responsible for offshore oil & gas matters.

And served as Senior Policy Adviser to Premier Peckford from 1979 to 1985 until the signing of the Atlantic Accord in February 1985;

Worked for both the Peckford and Wells Administrations as the sole external member on the Newfoundland Hibernia Negotiating Team from 1985 to the signing of the 1990 Hibernia Field Development Agreement with the Hibernia Consortium.

Anyway, here we are again – back in the Atlantic Accord trenches -– with Liberals in Ottawa (the PM is son of arch centralist Pierre T no less) and Liberals in St John’s (unable it seems to shake that old “We are only small/Ottawa knows best” attitude).

A Province and a people beaten down by Tory Muskrat greed and hubris (effectively enabled by the Liberals and NDP).

Must we now resort to that old crutch of a handout in exchange for rights?

After all, Ottawa and Emera, Banking and SNC Lavalin friends have had a big hand in this Muskrat fiasco.

Surely there must be a better way.

We have been through a lot over the last 400 years or so

– we’ve successfully adapted to and built a strong sense of identity and viable society in a pretty stormy rocky rugged wintry piece of territory; we love it

– and by 1932 had achieved the status of an independent Self Governing British Dominion equal in legal status to that of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State

-  this, in spite of all the odds, given England’s pernicious policies towards us stretching back to the 17th century (not to mention France’s persistent attempts to burn us out). 

All together the pedigree of an underdog.

Be proud of it.

Back in 1974, I spoke at a Law and Policy Conference on Energy at the University of Ottawa. An expanded version of my talk was published in the University’s “Ottawa Law Review” as “Newfoundland’s Case on Offshore Minerals: A Brief Outline”.

This “Case” covered not just the legal arguments but also the economic, environmental, social and moral “case”. Still makes interesting reading.

Because the offshore is still very complex, very international, technically dynamic and involves lots of money. Money that, as it turns out, attracts all sorts of flies and can be easily squandered by our leaders.

It’s a tough game and we had to be tough; and now must be tough again.

Mostly a matter of focus and tenacity and keeping a keen eye on both the oil companies and Ottawa’s politicians and bureaucrats. The power of corrupt, or just plain dominating, corporations is always focused on both.

So I ask that age old question that every generation seems to ask in its waning days

- Does the next generation have the fire in its belly and the focus to beat off this newest attack on our short and long term well-being; to our continued development as a distinct progressive society?

Having since seen nothing but reinforcing evidence, I can only repeat part of the conclusion in my Ottawa Law Review article:

“If the values of economic and social justice and cultural diversity that are inherent in Newfoundland’s claim are overlooked in favour of a centralized and inflexible federal management regime, is it not evident that, in the long run, Canada will be the poorer? 
“Note 1"

Ditto, Ditto for the Fisheries.

Note 1: Newfoundland’s Case on Offshore Minerals: A Brief Outline – Cabot Martin, Ottawa Law Review Vol 7 No 1 Winter 1975 pp 34 to 61 at page 61.

144 comments:

  1. Cabot Martin who not so long ago warned all about the dangers of Muskrtat. Alas despite the best attempts of Dunderdale and Nalcor to assassinate his character is still able to comment on provincial matters. Again he is warning, and again he is correct.

    Danny re-opened the accord in 2005 when he took the 2 Billion dollar cheque.

    It could ultimately be his most dangerous blunder, on a long long list of blunders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it not odd that this treatise by Cabot is a partisan document that slams the Liberals and tries to pretend he is neutral when he has been a strong supporter of the party in power when MF went down?

      Delete
    2. Nope Bruno that is not odd. I don't know if Cabit was a strong supporter of the party in power when muskrat went down or not. But we all know he was among the first of the naysayers of muskrat, and was very public about it. And no doubt you read his book, Muskrat Madness, that he published, I think in 2014, where he outlined all the pitfalls of muskrat, and most has come true says average Joe.

      Delete
  2. Well Cabot like the fishery, abandoned by their exalted native sons, the corporate union has ensured that adjacency rights have been extinguished.

    I wonder Cabot, if like fishery rights, the rights established in the Accord, will again not be defended by the native sons who by now have become quite comfortable and complacent? What do you think Cabot?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great article Cabot and reminder to those who might causally play around with Ottawa, like a cat and mouse game. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Oh yes if the Feds are in any way trying to link the Atlantic Accord to muskrat better beware ball et al. And I don't know the difference between principle and primary, but you can assure yourself that if the Feds want to change that wording, they know in their kniving mind what the different meaning is. They will play humpy dumpty and Alice in wonder land with you ball boy, and make a word mean whatever they want it to mean. So don't change that word because if you do you will just be another traitor to join the nalcor crew. If the change does not mean anything why would the Feds want to change it??? That is the question, says Joe blow.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh how quickly we are taught to forget!

    Ye brave Newfoundlanders who plough the salt sea,
    With hearts like the Eagle so bold and so free,
    The time is at hand when we'll have to say
    If Confederation will carry the day.

    Men, hurrah for our own native Isle, Newfoundland,
    Not a stranger shall hold one inch of her strand;
    Her face turns to Britain, her Back to the Gulf,
    Come near at your peril, Canadian Wolf!

    Cheap tea and molasses they say they will give,
    All taxes taken off that the poor man may live -
    Cheap nails and cheap lumber, our coffins to make,
    And homespun to mend our old clothes when they break.

    If they take off all taxes, how then will they meet
    The heavy expenses on Army and fleet?
    Just give them the chance to get into the scrap,
    They'll show you the trick with pen, ink and red tape.

    Would you barter the right that your fathers have won?
    No! let them descend from father to son.
    For a few thousand dollars Canadian gold
    Don't let it be said that our birthright was sold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tor! remember our parent's passion for politics in '48. Mine were pro confeds from the Bay. I gather that yours were agin, from Town. Let's have a green brew on St. Paddy's day. Long may your big jib...

      Delete
    2. Hi Tor

      Any relation to Knut?

      Delete
  5. I think Cabot's work for both PC and Liberal administrations, the results of his (and others) hard work associated with the Atlantic Accord, and his analyses, and then opposition to Muskrat Falls speaks for itself.

    In my own small way, and over some of my 35+ years as a federal government employee, I can attest to the difficulty of making sure that this province gets what it is fairly entitled to.

    Ottawa just don't agree to and hand out entitlements on a silver platter.

    If those that follow do not grasp the full scope and broad meaning of the hard work and achievements that preceded them, with little more than the stroke of a pen, rights (and in the long term billions in benefits) can be forever lost to the province.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a throw back of the colonial government system after all. The Feds were/are entrusted under the British parliamentary system, to hold all the cards. That Martin and a few brave souls, under Peckford, dared to claim NL offshore rights with respect to mineral resources shook the PMO power base to the core. Some of us surmised how differently Ottawa would have reacted, had oil riches been struck say 15km off Toronto Island! Thank you again, Cabot for the hard won Accord, and extended fishing limits, to the benefit of NL.

      Delete
    2. And has the amendment to the NAFO agreement (a few years back) put significant fisheries control back in the hands of a dozen or so foreign nations?

      The terms of union gave control of the fishery to Canada. And with the NAFO amendment much of what was Canada's responsibility was passed over to NAFO (even though Parliament voted against it).

      As I said --- 'with the stroke of a pen'.

      Delete
  6. It's funny how "adjacency" works. Still trying to figure out how Harbour Grace is "adjacent" to Makkovik or Baffin Island.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A worthwhile read indeed: -- http://theindependent.ca/2019/03/08/where-does-government-end-and-nalcor-begin/

    Excerpt:

    Nalcor's "...fantastical privileges: to dictate that government rewrite legislation so as to monopolize the market and be free of regulatory oversight by the PUB; to gobble up the public purse, strap, zipper and all; and, not content with the billions spent in existing public funds, to commit many billions more, decades into the future, by bundling every electrical bill in the province into a securitized asset—an investment vehicle for the global bond market."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Over the past couple of weeks, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have seen three men, two of whom ought to know what they are talking about, rend their garments, mop their furrowed brows, and gnash their teeth at the prospect that something nefarious is happening in the Atlantic Accord review currently underway between the federal and provincial governments.

    For all of the lamentation and a twonie, you could get a cup of coffee and an entertaining show but not much else.

    Much is made of the words principle and primary and that they might mean something different, one from the other. Nowhere does Mr. Martin here or Mr. Crosbie elsewhere suggest what that difference might be in the abstract or in the specific.

    That tells me they do not know the difference and I will bow to their expertise on the matter, as lawyers and as people experienced with language. If they cannot find a difference, then I will accept that there is no difference. There is no difference as they have admitted with their silence on what is the central point of their argument.

    I will go a step further and note that on this point Mr. Crosbie and his father are of one voice on this matter. There is no difference between the two. The two words are interchangeable according to Crosbie senior and that should be even more reason for calmness if anyone needed such a thing.

    That neither Mr. Martin nor Mr. Peckford - two men directly involved in the original negotiations - that neither of them can actually speak to what the term "principle" meant in the original agreement and why "primary" might mean less now is even further proof that there is absolutely nothing going on here at all.

    They are just concerned that something *might* happen.

    Well, anything might happen. But unless there is some reason to believe something *is* happening, there's no cause for alarm. Sensible people - and they are all sensible people - do not get their undies in a bunch over a thing that even they themselves cannot describe. That leaves me to scratch my head in bewilderment at why such sensible people are not behaving sensibly.

    But I am not afraid of what the talks with Ottawa might bring. Three sensible men with knowledge of the Accord and the law have given me no evidence that there is something to worry about even if that was not what they set out to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At last, a sane adult voice.
      Please keep talking truth to the nativist lunacy Mr. Bond.

      Delete
    2. Out of province guy is always lurking in the shadows with his two comments today.

      Delete
    3. You speaking about Tor?
      He's one of the Bell Island Fosnaes'

      Delete
    4. Anon 22:59
      Dat you AJ/Average Joe/Wayne/Waldo?

      Delete
    5. No tors boy , not you. The eleuuvise anonymous troll, aka ERK, Eric, Ex. Waldo boy.

      Delete
  9. That was the first thing I noted Mr. Hollett, and I even did a short and very incomplete search to try and find the distinction between principal and primary.

    But I quickly chose to comment on something I did have some familiarity with --- how determined Ottawa can be to have its way (and how easy it is to overturn years of hard work).

    The little I did find in my search tended to give me some doubt that the two have the same meaning.

    For example, in the area of taxation, there seemed to be a distinction between principle and primary residence.

    However, not being a lawyer, I will go no further on that issue. But given Mr. John Crosbie's view on Muskrat Falls, I would not rely very heavily on his opinion.

    As to Mr. Cabot Martin, I was disappointed that he did not explain the specific issue that Mr. Ches Crosbie had raised. But he chose instead to speak in broad terms about the risks, the danger of making changes to something that came into existence as a result of much sweat, toil and strategic insights as to the long term best interests of the province.

    While your criticism seems to have some limited technical merit, it seems to me to be a poor attempt to distract from Cabot Martin's larger and much more important concern about the risks of tinkering in secret with something so critical to the future of the province.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "provision" in question is not a provision but a mere preamble. It is meaningless. The means by which offshore royalties are allocated to NL are dealt with in specifity in the Accord Implementation Act. This is an unwarranted bit of flailing hyperbole, which should come as no surprise given the source and given the timing. The people of NL should remain focused on actual matters at hand - electricity rates, unemployment, the need for municiapl reform, the lack of private investment and the profilgate levels of government spending rather than yet another artificial distraction about Ottawa bogeymen lurking in the imaginary shadows.

      Delete
    2. Yes,It's about time we got over this "world against us mentality." The politicians use it to their advantage and to our detriment.

      Delete
    3. Mark, if the preamble is meaningless, why does it exist?

      While I have not read the Accord and AI Act for decades, surely, the Accord Implementation Act would be the legal instrument that gives effect to what is in the Atlantic Accord itself, no?

      If the Accord itself is changed, so can the interpretation/application of the AI Act.

      The AI Act would not only constitute the 'means by which', and not only 'how' "royalties" alone are allocated, but to what extent they (and other benefits and entitlements) are assured, allocated, and otherwise accrue to NL, no?

      I do not feel assured when told BY ANYONE, that I should 'look away', as Trump might say, that ---- "there is nothing to see here".

      I have never seen Ottawa as the 'boogeyman', but have had some years of fist hand experience in collaborating with, sometimes standing up to, and and sometimes rebutting highly centralized Ottawa positions, that if not recognized, addressed, perhaps (as need be) rejected, and/or modified would have destructive impacts on the people of this province.

      Your boogeyman terminology is doing a disservice to those that have done, continue to do, and must do the hard negotiations to ensure that this province not only retains its existing rights but furthers rights yet to be recognized and properly fleshed out.

      We can walk and chew gum at the same time.





      Delete
  10. Newfoundlanders would not be Newfoundlanders if they were not abused by everyone, persecuted and deprived of whatever they have. Because Newfoundlanders themselves act and say like that, what hope can be for them ? Who can help them ? Who can sustain them ? By definition, no one because by THEIR definition, they are always abused, persecuted, deprived, ... so they will remain as such!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's time for another nauseating Trudeau apology.

      Delete
    2. Oh come off it.. don't be so daft, playing the bloody victimized Newfie card again.

      Newfies are their own worst enemies, and until they come to grips with that brutal reality they'll always find themselves on the shit-heap.

      Look at the half-assed, backwards way they govern themselves, and the bloody assholes they elect time after time.

      They're just like a bunch of naive little children in need of adult supervision for chrissakes.

      Delete
  11. There is a fine distinction between primary and principal, the differences in application will lie in the definitions in the Accord:

    Primary: first beneficiary
    Principal: the party who gains the most

    There is a good database on revenue Canada cases where the hairs are spilt on these definitions - if anyone is interested in reading and understanding the difference and how it has been applied in the past.

    PENG2

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with opinion. can you site examples where the primary was not principal beneficiary? bankrupcy?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, while the adults argue over primary and principal, as to who gets the most from offshore oil and gas, the best news of today: My wife, who listens to VOCM in the morning, says school children here are marching on Confederation building this Friday, March 15.
    Their core message should be that mother earth must retain the primary and principle benefit of the oil and gas off our shore, by leaving 80% or more right where it is. In other words SHUT HER DOWN, gradually over the next 10 years.
    On Friday there are 700 marches planned in 70 countries, by school children who speak truth to power: the truth being that we adults are destroying our children's future by climate change with fossil fuel burning.
    What would Cabot Martin, Dwight Ball, Minister Coady, Ches Crosbie, Graham Letto, or Brian Peckford say to those children; you fix the problem when you grow up?
    The inspiration for this march comes not from Al Gore, or Green Peace, but from 15 year old Swedish child Greta Thunberg. What is it that she understands that adults do not? Sadly, as a society we are too willing to sacrifice our children's future for easy and temporary wealth from a resource that has seen "it's best before date".
    When Minister Letto spoke to kids at Beachy Cove school on Friday past,reading from a book on climate change, did he intend to initiate a march on government about climate change? I doubt it. Maybe Letto should address the children's concerns?
    Winston Adams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Better not be my child. Enough with socialist indoctrination at schools please.

      Keith

      Delete
    2. You are hopeless Keith! You will leave a planet to your kids with runaway climate change and all you can conclude is that it is a socialist indoctrination? Please get your head out of your arse even though it will exacerbate climate change you are so full of hot air!

      Delete
    3. "Angry Bruno" strikes again because someone dare not agree with him. Can't you feel the love/hate?

      Keith

      Delete
    4. Keith, it's called "Fire in his belly". You and he should have a green beer, and find out what you have in common:-)

      Delete
    5. I don't think so Robert. I'd rather have a conversation but Mr. Marcocchio too often attacks the messenger and not the message.

      For example, if Mr. Marcocchio had said what do you mean by "socialist indoctrination" I would have been happy to state my case about the role of schools and how children are quite impressionable and can be easily led.

      With all due respect to Winston, Greta Thunberg is 16 years old and, if Wikipedia is correct, "insisted" her parents become vegan and give up flying...WOW!! Interesting read however I am far from ready to pass over decision-making to a teenager.

      School children should be not used as pawns for any political or ideological purpose. It is wrong on so many levels.

      Keith

      Delete
    6. They are not pawns, they hold the wisdom of the ages. I know exactly what "socialist indoctrination" means. It is so bizarre and politically stupid that it does not deserve a response.

      You are a climate change denier with a long redneck streak down your back. You should learn from the young who understand what is at stake and how urgent the call for effective action. Red baiters like you are 50 years out of date and just plain stupid.

      Delete
    7. Robert I have nothing in common with a MacArthyite. Green beer and a Red under every bed clash terribly :<)

      Delete
    8. Keith, yes Greta is now 16 for just over 2 months. She was 15 when she started her protest. If you quibble on this small error on her age, advise what you know on the failure to reduce emissions, compared to what politicians promised. For a very young person, she is extremely knowledgeable about facts and what science on this says.
      I have read she convinced her parents with her facts , knowledge and arguments, not forced them to change and support her.
      Are you attacking the messenger, Greta, rather than her knowledge and wisdom? Socialist ideas? In fact even the communist party of Canada supports her, so what? I expect many capitalists do, to various degrees, She was invited to DAVOS to address billioners.
      If you deny the science, say so. If you accept the science, then are you satisfied with the progress, and advise the progress you see that is satisfactory that a fix is to be doen in a timely basis?
      Winston

      Delete
    9. Hey Bruno....SJW's like yourself are just plain stupid. What an argument. Good bye Angry Bruno. Go hijack someone else's blog or start your own.

      Winston...I wasn't quibbling about the age in your missive. I was just quoting from the "wikipedia" page. Lighten up and stop being so sensitive.

      Other than that I stand by my comments.

      Cheers...Keith

      Delete
    10. Climate change protest march indeed... what an absolute farce.

      Canada contributes less than 0.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and the politicians are taking full advantage of the ignorance and of a gullible, uneducated public to impose a carbon tax.

      How bloody-well daft is that?

      A shame Andy Wells isn't in there to speak truth to utter foolishness.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous13 March 2019 at 22:55
      Your climate change denial trope is very old and very misguided if I can be polite.

      Do you take responsibility for your waste or do you say that although you shit in the street it is an insignificant amount of waste? The planet is feverish and storms, tornadoes and hurricanes get more intense and irreversible change is only a decade away if you listen to the science. Then there are anon trolls like you, afraid to show your face, saying your shit does not stink even though you do it in public. At least Andy puts a name to his denialist nonsense.

      Grow up.

      Delete
    13. I think even Andy was showing shades of green lately.
      As to Greta, she is alignned with the famous Stephen Hawkings, who stated that global warming is worst danger to civilization even more than nuclear war. And Greta knows her science. Where is Keith's argument, except to say she is young, and should be ignored.
      And to me being too sensitive. that is only my feminine side. Keith picking on a young girl with a disability, yet who is so smart and brave. She uses science and facts, and Keith puts her down as to her age and determination.
      Perhaps Keith is just old and out of touch, and thinks saying he is a businessman is alone an asset. What type of business, makes the Forbes list? Sustainable business?
      An aside : I was impressed listening to Sid Hynes this morning, The Oceanex guy, who also critizied politicians here and MFs. And he creates many jobs.
      Winston

      Delete
    14. Winston...Ad hominem attacks are beneath you (not Bruno though). All the words you assigned to me are absolutely false and made up. You got all of that from a couple of lines I wrote about this young lady. Really?

      Keith

      Delete
    15. Keith, perhaps ad hominem attacks, if it is there is from my masculine side. My Latin in rusty , but do I really attack your character or motive?
      I question your business qualifcations, but you identified yourself as a businessman, and anti-socialist, so perhaps a Trump man and not a Bernie type, one might speculate.
      And not one positive word about Greta, or that other school children might think and act like her: "Better not be my child. Enough with socialist indoctrination at schools" I have grandchildren that I hope would be so motivated, but have not not talked to them about it.
      Me, a limited capitalist, maybe with socialist leanings, so probably in the middle. And children, I think , should be taught the wide range of ideas but just not be led , but think critically.
      Greta has inspired many. Say something positive about her, if you see anything. If not, your words stand, but an anon, not so worthwhile.
      Winston


      Delete
    16. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-talk-about-collusion-how-foreign-backed-anti-oil-activists-infiltrated-canadas-government

      Keith

      Delete
    17. Keith, you can do better than spreading the same old Gwyn Morgan paranoia, and tar sands propaganda. Think of the damage that promoting accelerated extraction of petroleum and carbon material has on the planet's life sustaining air, water and soil.

      Delete
    18. Robert...but no comment on Vivian Krause's detailed work? Another ad hominen attack on Mr. Morgan. Impressive guys.

      Keep it coming as it exposes your true nature.

      Keith

      Delete
    19. Morgan is the former chair of SNC Lavalin and has deep right wing credentials with the Frazer Institute.

      Morgan was SNC chairperson during the "troubled" years 2007 to 2013. He is just your kind of role model Keith, head of a corporation involved in bribery and fraud. You want a "detailed" analysis?

      You seem a very thin skinned right wing zealot.

      Delete
    20. I would hope that Ms. Krause and M. Morgan fully appreciate how they have personally contributed to this deplorable and unsustainable result:

      https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/orphan-wells-british-columbia-oil-gas-auditor-general-1.5056633

      Delete
    21. Robert...still no comment on the facts Ms Krause presents? Quelle surprise.

      Keith

      Delete
    22. Gwynn Morgan has never heard of a 600 k severance when someone quits a job. Morgan forgets the 6 million Ed Martin absconded with when he quit.

      The smear against every enviro organization is a classic smear. A trickle of American based foundations have begun funding Canadian fossil development for a global issue that threatens our future. Keith the flood of fossil fuel funding, most of it dark, makes foundation funding seem trivial for a battle for our collective survival.

      Your arguments are racist and assume that First Nations are not able to their self determination on what happens on their territory.

      You did not deserve a detailed analysis but there it is nonetheless.

      Delete
    23. I gather that Ms. Krause is in support of farmed "Atlantic" salmon, on the coast of BC.

      Delete
    24. Can you articulate your point Keith or do you just quote other more articulate right wing zealots. Gwynn Morgan, Krause, you ride with the wild bunch Keith!

      Delete
  14. Well said Winston. Sad it is up to children to hold greedy politicians to account for the GW threat. In NL only you seem to realize that it is time to leave the oil in the ground.

    Is the reality of climate change of little concern to greedy politicians?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't know much about the battle that went on during the negotiation of the Atlantic Accord, but I do know it was a complete failure under the Peckford and successive governments. It only worked for a scant few well connected people in the provincial economy.

    I also know that the benefits accrue first to oil and oil service companies, second to the federal government, thirdly to the provincial government and then to the very well connected businesses here in Newfoundland.

    For the rest of us, there was no point in having offshore oil. All it did was inflate provincial governments and public service to the point it is now a drain and not an asset to the provincial economy.

    And oil was not accessible. Back in the day, if you were a well qualified individual trained here looking for work in oil in this province, you were met by "glassed in" office facilities (even at the CNOPB).

    You were told to apply or submit your resume online and then if you were lucky enough to be interviewed and hired, sent to Texas or Alberta, worked to bits and then either quit from exhaustion or just laid-off. A few positions were made available through the local college system.

    There was no intermediate steps to the process, no local ladder to climb, no technology transfer and certainly no way to participate in oil and gas without piles and piles of money.

    And now that there is a oil glut, not to mention Muskrat Falls ... the province is back in the dumps. A debate over wording is meaningless although I suspect that federal government "flies" (as usual) are looking for a bigger slice of offshore pie ... what is the difference between primary and principal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James, you have described very well what a "petro state" does to a community, struggling with the idea of self sufficiency, and sustainable development. Green New deal to all! Our sons and daughters have been left a real mess.

      Delete
  16. Attended a brilliant lecture from Bob Sanford, in Cranbrook last night:

    http://www.rwsandford.ca/

    This well educated Canadian sets the standard we should all rise to, in land protection, and understanding the global hydrological cycle. Climate action will require shutting down the petroleum industry, to save a liveable neighbourhood for your own grandchildren.

    ReplyDelete
  17. if the term principal holds no implied ownership, decision making ability, etc. the is no reason to change the term or introduce an interchangeable term. the absence of a requirement to change it is reason not to change it and leave it as is.
    maybe we should add more CEOs and management layers to our governance of the provincial oil industry. we do need more jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So govt. gradually snuggles up to nalcor and says, what are we going to do with you?? You have been out of control for years, depleated the treasury, no power yet, but we still think you are destined to be great again someday, our beloved energy warehouse. But with an election looming we must show that we have you under control. Nalcor, the giant monster rolled its eyes, flashed a grin to show its fangs, and said we have the perfect plan, we were expecting you, here is the deck. Just seperate my two parts, Dracula from Frankeinstein for a few years. I Frankeinstein, will continue to roam the wilds of Labrador and hold the money from the offshore oil, but still call me nalcor, or nalcor 1, and my other head, Dracula can roam the Grand Banks in search and in charge of oil. You can retain his name as Dracula or call him Snake Oil. It will make you look like you are in charge for a little while, you have slain the monster or split it right down the middle. Well done ball et al!!! Who knows I may have a new boss later this year, but whomever, no one will control me, I will always be in charge. And someday we will become one again, should I decide to shuffle the deck. Oh!! Thank you, thank you gleamed ms. Coady as ball et al dashed away, as he shouted our plan is better than chesses. Yes, Joe blow again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But remember Ches's Plan is CHEAP, and you get what you pay for says Dwight, suggesting a cheap plan is no good.
      Meanwhile, cheap is about 14.5 cent rates, up almst 50 % since MF sanction, yet Ches says we won't pay a cent on account of MFs.
      Ches uses little of Synapse's idea: no electricification of transport, no CDM, no heat switching, no control over peak demand to get more exports of power, maybe Ches is content to import dirty coal power, as needed?
      Now will Ball undercut with a promise of power rates to residents lower than Ches's cheap plan?
      Is not the resent rates a bit too high? Has Ches evaluated the elasticity effect of 14.5 cent rates? In the 1930s, I know men spent days digging ancient wood roots from bog areas near their houses for fire wood. And even cut down wood power poles. So what rate is too high?
      And even Ches's Cheap requires 50 years of oil revenue to subsidise electricity. And we only have 11 years to roll back oil production and slay the dragon.
      Does Ches need to rethink his Cheap Plan? Maybe give up some of the Accord now for MFs mitigation? Maybe offshore is heading to be a stranded asset?
      Heck, why don't we take over Quebec, fire all NL MHAs, use Quebec power rares less than 8 cents. They manage us, as long as SNC gets the criminal charges due them. Treat us as well as rural Quebec, which is bound to be better than rural Nfld is now treated. I mean , if you can't beat them ,which we can't, join them. Isn't Rocket Richard still a heroic figure in Nfld , as in the 50s and 60s?
      End Quebec bashing, and the court battles. Whoops....just typed c..t battles, which was a slip, but seemed appropriate. So. I'll shut up.
      Winston Adams

      Delete
    2. WA @ 15:11:

      When I looked over the CHEAP plan, I didn't see any 'new' money - so by Economics 101 it just means we are taking monies currently designated services to other places and redirecting to pay for MF. So, wont we just be getting less in other areas to pay for MF?

      While I guess saving money from government or Nalcor operational expenses could be new - if there is a savings there tomorrow, we should already be saving that today and todays government is therefore wasting money.

      I think that until we find a source of external revenue MF rate mitigation is only political B$ - either the money comes from the rate payer or the tax payer, and it is at least $500/yr for every 1 of 500,000 people in the province.


      Also, I did answer your question about duplication of authors in the 14-MC-2012-02-27 document, and posted some words on the PC government of the day getting a MF mandate by winning a general election in the fall of 2011.

      PENG2

      Delete
  19. "I was most struck by his comment on a possible change in the Accord that would see us being demoted from “principal beneficiary” to ”primary beneficiary” – a big change in a key, supposedly entrenched right."

    Principle vs. Principal. A principle is a rule, a law, a guideline, or a fact. A principal is the headmaster of a school or a person who's in charge of certain things in a company. Principal is also an adjective that means original, first, or most important.

    If words are so important Mr. Cabot, maybe use the right word? yeah?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DT1989 @ 14:59:

      I think principal is correct in this incidence, based on what I understand of the talks - though I have seen news media using principle.

      As you say, 2 very different words.

      PENG2

      Delete
    2. I've been going through it a bit, in hindsight, i believe "Principal" is actually correct.

      My bad!

      Delete
    3. Don't forget, IF all was fair and just, the Beothic, who looks down on the commissioner,would be wanting their share of offshore wealth, on the 1000 year principle of adjacency.
      But fair trade was only accomplished once in Trinity Bay by John Guy, who never envisaged an Atantic Accord, nor even island hydro power.
      But we are due to get the sculls back....for what purpose?
      Winston

      Delete
  20. For those who think things are simple in Ottawa about primary, principal or principle have short memories. Ask the pro on that topic, senator mike Duffy. He single handily turned Ottawa and the senate on their heads, and in irons for a couple of years trying to figure out where he lived. Did he live in PEI or Ottawa, what living expenses and travel expenses could he claim. Could he charge to winterized his priminary residence or cottage in PEI, or was he required to walk to work. Mike said his principal residence was in Ottawa, or was it his principle residence or priminary residence. The senate was totally confused because other senators begin to question where they lived. Harper was confused hew was going to refer it to the SCC and the NDP proclaimed that the only way to resolve the question was to abolish the senate altogether. A. Brian, Cabot and Ed are mere babes in the arms of Duff when it comes to primirary and principal. Ask the man who knows says Joe blow.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Some more "Red Scare" fodder for Keith;

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/13/please-step-away-from-the-socialism-the-red-scare-dems-at-msnbc/

    At least the Bolshies helped get rid of European Monarchs, and some forms of servitude

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Robert. I am trying to get in touch with my progressive feminine side but it's just not happening especially today after dealing with a roof leak at my business.

      Now I have to go rub some low-grit sandpaper on the back of my neck after reading this one. LOL

      Keith

      Delete
  22. I am thinking Keith is a man who is angry because everyone doesn't see the world as he does!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you see the world anonymous?

      Keith

      Delete
  23. Just imagine; NL adopting a Green New Deal, similar to Costa Rica;

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/climate/costa-rica-climate-change.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. The words are immaterial. What will the new numbers say?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Seems like the electrification of govt. controlled buildings are underway. Is the oil fired generation at the HSC being converted to an electrical system?? Is that just the beginning, how much will that cost the taxpayers. What other govt. buildings are being converted or plans to convert?? I am not really in the know, so just asking. Seems nalcor will continue to control its current asseets, in hydro and the oil industry. Seems there is just a splinter being taken of nalcor to grow new discovery oil and developing new future oil fields like bay de nord, in much deeper water etc. So we may have the son of nalcor. I am not against growth of any kind, unless it comes from the public treasury and tax payers that is indirect competition for the same dollar as health care, social programs, education etc. What savings was govt. telling us they were going to make by making nalcor smaller, appears with a new nalcor called oil and gas added to the existing nalcor, the savings will be zilch,,but the increased may be astronomical. Maybe UG will be doing a post on some if these items soon, or other blog writers may post that are more informed than the average Joe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Joe, efficient electricification, to get off oil burning is neded, but it seems they will go with the inefficient electric method.

      As to a New Green Deal, Ches plan or Dright's Plan , none are very green.
      Keith on this blog is against Greta, and any talk of scholl childeren going on strike on Friday.
      "I don't want you to be hopeful. I want you to be panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act".
      That was part of her speech to the billionaires enterpreurs in Davos.

      When Bruno talks of speaking truth to power, is there a better example than Greta? Puts to shame Leblanc's thump on the desk and his few words to Ed Martin. Here that was admirable, but really so little.
      Winston

      Delete
    2. Agree with you Winston, but I feel her words of wisdom is a plea in the wilderness when talking to billioneers. We know how they became billioneers, taking from the poor and keeping for themselves. But we still should all support her. But until the people of the world elect leaders that want to save the planet, then not much can be achieved. We all take about the size of every persons footprint... Some are small, some are big and some are humangous. Is there any such a thing as a negative foot print, like the poorest of this world living on garbage in squaller camps or big cities dumps, just a thought says Joe blow.

      Delete
    3. Joe, have a look at "zero net energy" as a methodology to reduce one's personal carbon footprint. Also, if more of us would appreciate the changing global hydrological cycle, the threat to ground water quality, caused by human activity, maybe a few small changes to lifestyle would pass on to our grandchildren some sustainable options, such as you and I have enjoyed from our ancestors; Not being a practicing catholic, I was impressed by Pope John's direction to youth; "Go forth and build a civilization that is worthy of humanity".

      Delete
  26. Some insights into the current and past of salmon fishing on the Pacific Coast. Maybe Keith can see where M. Krause is not helping native fisheries survive;

    https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/03/13/Love-Affair-Salmon-Broken-Heart/

    ReplyDelete
  27. This GRAHAM LETTO individual is nothing but a two-faced, mealy-mouthed DOPE.

    Couldn't get elected as a Tory back in 2005 so he two-timed with Liberals for a shot at the MHA pension in 2015. Just another athetic political opportunist.

    And now that this LETTO is actually in a position where he has to earn his keep he hasn't guts to make a decision on an issue or provincial import.

    RESIGN!! You useless twit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/bag-ban-banter-continues-1.5056702

      Delete
  28. they must be waiting for the fed budget to see what money they can get before making any pre spring election decisions or promises

    ReplyDelete
  29. Students strikes have started in Australia, where 20,000 to 30,000 are reported in Melbourne alone. There they have had drought , heat waves and fires and want to open more coal mines.
    Greta told the billioneres at Davos "You act like children" Keith on this blog will have a bad day I expect. Keith thinks we should drill baby drill.
    Not a bad idea for the thermal energy about 2 miles down, to make stream to drive turbines for electricity. Lots of sustainable renewable energy there, and getting some uptake.
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
  30. NEWS FLASH: Its almost calm. winds 4 MPH, so our wind generation is very little this morning, with 1374 MW grid load. , -4.8C. But the sun is rising. Low wind is rare in Nfld which makes our wind resource so goooooood ( but this given away to NS as a freebee, it was in Ed Martin's arse pocket , Ed the deal maker. Solar is , not rare but much less reliable, and low efficiency , about 20%, expensive, and tomorrow we get sleet, so a piss poor solar day then.
    4 MPH WINDS ON NATIONAL SLEEP DAY. I hear.
    What a grand day here for student strikes for climate protection. Will mumbling Letto address the marchers concerns? Letto ...3 years and can't decide if we will ban single use plastic bags. Imagine how long to close off our last producing oil well? Need to happen in 11 years. Letto's plan ....300 years.
    For the uninformed : if all the ice caps melt, the ocean rises 200feet. So a lot of people will head for Signal Hill. Where will Oceanex ships tie up?
    What a grand day ahead: clear sky, sun shining, Willie Nelson on VOWR Singing Somewhere between me and you, and then Mussles in the Corner jig. I kind of dancing here standing at the keyboard. Then "Since I met you baby".....I don't need nobody to tell my troubles too,..... Since I met you baby...I'm a happy man. Praise the Lord .. for VOWR, ,,,,and for sunshime, ...and for UG too.
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Winston when you quote wind speed of 4 mph. Where do you get your reading?? ( no fake news here, lol) From the airport, radio, or form the actual location of the wind farms at Fermuse and st. Lawrence.? Just wondering as at the elevation of those windmills and locations the wind might be 20 km or more, just asking. As I understand it the trapessay barrens were chosen and at the altitude of the wind vanes, wind coming from St. Mary's Bay was always, or rearly below 20 km. So if that were true, maybe there is almost max. Power coming from the wind farms, even when it appears very light winds here or even at the airport.. (Ps..good to know to know the Salvation Army will make good use of your donation.) cheers, Joe blow, average Joe, AJ.

      Delete
    2. I always use Torbay Intn Airport data. True , wind generator located at locations to give good performance and usually higher elevation. So would be interesting if some Hydro engineer posted some data on what capacity factor were getting today. Newer units with bigger props are even more efficient. With different location feeding into the grid, if one is low another is likely doing good.
      And Hatch should be hauled over the coals to say why they produced such a poor report for Nalcor, so not just other consultants tailoring reports, doing that. HATCH: lock em up?
      Winston

      Delete
  31. Several times on UG I have stated there is insufficient transmission capacity to the Eastern Avalon, even with the new 230 kv line added, and asked confirmation....and no one responded. not even PENG2. . Nfld Power's Peter Alteen recently said he only lately realized this could be a problem. What a crock. This an excuse as they kept silent on the whole MF fiasco, and now wants all in on solutions or mitigation, and maybe pick up some more business and assets.

    CBC's piece today on DarkNl: Andy wells and Dennis Browne: that if Labrador power fails, and Holyrood is decommissioned , we are facing another Dark NL, after spending 12.7 billion!
    Nalcor misled the people to say 300 MW would be available from NS. At present no such power is available, only 100 MW , if that is available (no assurance).
    NS has no surplus. In winter , when we have high peak loads, so does NS and NB.
    Worse still: if 300 MW was available, it cannot get to Eastern Avalon.
    Can Planet NL do a piece showing the grid lines, their capacity? We have major stations at Western Avalon, at Holyrood, and now Soldiers Pnd, and at Hardwoods.
    Power getting to Western Avalon, near Long harbour , does not allow all that power t get to Eastern Avalon. HELLLLLOOOOOOO ST JOHNS. , HOSPITALS, 2000,000 PEOPLE and more on eastern Avalon. Our arses will freeze with rotating outages.
    Avalon; East vs West as to the power grid
    I had hoped that our prior planning engineer Fred Wilcox would comment on this, but says he is blocked from UG. Not sure that's the case.
    If Nfld Power did not know this risk, did Andy or Dennis , until recently?
    This is common knowledge with anyone in the power business here.........all 3 should have known this prior to sanction. We have only 2 -230 kw lines from west to east interconnect on the Avalon, not 3 lines.
    Winston Adams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WA @ 09:09:

      You are correct, but I thought it was discussed in a debate of why the LIL isn't so reliable considering it must make it to SP from HVGB inorder to supply our grid (ie the AC vs DC aspect) and why there were no drops along the route.

      Also worthwhile checking out the import levels into NS in the winters, and the import ability.

      Here is a link to the current map:
      https://nlhydro.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Provincial-Transmission-Grid.pdf

      PENG2

      Delete
    2. WA @ 09:09:

      The difference with TL267 inplace is that we have 2 dedicated lines coming to Eastern Avalon - so 2 lines now at capacity (ie TL217 and TL203/201).

      Previously, there was 1 dedicated line to Eastern Avalon from BSP and 1 line servicing the refinery and Long Harbour with surplus coming east; so effectively previously TL217 would have been under capacity based on refinery and LH needs.

      As you say, 2 lines from west to eat Avalon; the change is from BSP to western Avalon and the trickle down capacity effects from west to east Avalon.


      Unlikely Holyrood can be decommissioned - also liked to this is that there should be a statement on just how much pollution Holyrood makes in reality. Most quote numbers when Holyrood is at capacity - realistically the actual pollution is 10% of the quoted number.

      PENG2

      Delete
    3. Reliability demands on average of 2.8 hours of downtime per year. Labrador power may be down a few times per year, to average 6-10 hours, I think, but may at times maybe once every 5 years or so be down for 2 months or more, a crisis.
      So sufficient power to eastern Avalon is essential under such circumstances: Options, or combinations, I suggest:
      1. Holyrood old units, is not decommissioned, but not operating and on standby, but takes 2 days to get up and running, so a poor solution.
      2.Replace Holyrood with GTs that start in 10 seconds.
      3.Increase wind capacity to offset GT emissions and fuel cost. Excess wind can be sold to NS rather than wasted.
      4 .Add small island hydro.
      5.Increase the Avalon West to east interconnenction, another 50 mile or so of 230kv, reduced GT capacity.
      6. Increase CDM and DSM to reduce peak load in winter, to reduce GT capacity needed and reduce fuel burn and reduce emissions, again permitting sales to NS for external revenue to Nfld at times.

      And if MFs failed to operate at all, and little power from UC over the line, then the above is also warranted and necessary.
      While Synapse and Liberty and the PUB assess this, politicians are ignorant to what we face or how to solve it, so where is their Plan? Ches's CHEAP plan and Balls The Way Forward, still heading backwards. NDP. Nonsense Dunce Party as to Energy Policy.
      Winston

      Delete
    4. WA @ 14:21:

      More or less, we are back to the same options as in 2007 - me being a realist, I don't see any different in what needs to be done now vs what should have been done then as the responsible option.

      Though, I am not sure the advantage of your #5 option.

      PENG2

      Delete
    5. PENG2: as to option 5; a third 230 kw line to the Avalon was planned well before MF sanction, and I assume most figured, as did I , that it would bring considerable more capacity to eastern Avalon where most of the load is.
      In a cold snap, we hit close to 1800 MW island peak load. I guess about 1200 of this or more is on the Avalon.
      Of 1200, two 230 kw maybe gives a total of 700 from island hydro. Nfld power has about 100MW, most on the Avalon. This leaves 400 from Holyrood. With Holyrood decommissioned, and the DC line down, could be for weeks, we are short 400, but can get 100MW (123 peak) from the newer gas turbine, and 50 maybe from Hardwoods GT (which is obsolete and unreliable).
      So we are short 300 MW, yet some spare island Hydro capacity that can be given, even if not constant,but 120 MW from Deer lake available, and if supplemented by import from the Maritime Link.But now the bottle neck is that the new 230 kv line comes only to western avalon, and not to connect to the east Avalon. Also that additional 3 line link form west to east Avalon, gives reduces transmission losses on all 3 lines,compared to overloading the 2 lines, so less power is wasted.
      I am sure Hydro planning has considered this, and likely Nfld Power as well. And so I wondered if Fred Wilcox has looked at the numbers and loading?
      My numbers here may be off some, but ball park. I think we should not depend on gas turbines running for weeks when hydro can do it, or most of it. With Holyrood thermal gone, and DC not reliable, we need layers of other options.
      But yes, after 12.7 billion , we are back to 2007 as options, but best practise for wind, CDM, DSM, small hydro, and east -west Avalon interconnections all need assessments, various combinations.
      The DC line to the Avalon is essentially a radial supply, like we now have to the Burin Peninsula, or up the Northern Peninsula. It is by nature not very reliable, and more so by terrain and climate.
      Little if any attention has been paid to this by the Inquiry, but
      the planning concept for that ,as to reliability, lacks credibility. Liberty too said so, in their way as probably not very prudent.
      It took a lot of conniving to get were we are with MFs. A lot of good people stayed quiet or were moved out of the way.
      Winston

      Delete
  32. The AJ prize of 500.00 cheque sat waiting for a couple of weeks; how to get it to the Salvation Army? I discovered that my neighbour here in Loby Bay area, Vivian Templeman, is Salvation Army faith, originally from Caning's Cove. My wife mentioned it to her, and she said she would pass it along. She has done that. She gave it to the"major', explaining where is came from, about to use it to assist average Joes and Janes , at the request of UG's anon AJ, as to higher power bills. He was delighted, and had a project in mind where good use could be made.
    Perhaps we should do it again. Perhaps the major will now read UG, and wonder how many soup kitchens they could have with a fraction of that 12.7 billion waste?
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
  33. How does minisplits, that typically give 300% efficiency, at times each 600% efficiency?
    1. 300% is when they are operating at rated capacity, and low RH ambient conditions when cold, or also moderate ambient temperatures, above the freezing point.
    2 . When at lower than full load, such as in the spring or fall, or even winter when on a sunny day, the unit will have the compressor speed to slow down, and overate maybe at 25 % capacity(called part load) A these low loads, the efficiency can jump to 500% or more.
    3. Efficiency also improves at the outdoor temperature rises, as this is the air that is forced through the unit. Yesterday and today, the outdoor temperature can expect to increase about 15 F, giving about 23 % better efficiency.
    4. When mounted in an attic, this is what we see: yesterday the attic went from 32 F in the morning to 76 in the afternoon. , a 44 F rise. If air was fan forced in the attic the temperature there would rise not to 76 but about 66, due to outdoor air coming through, so still a 34 f rise. This adds about 51 % to the system efficiency.
    5 Taken together when attic mounted, : with the unit part loaded, possibly reaching 550 % efficiency, and adding for the temperature benefit of about 50% from attic solar gain benefit for the HP, we get about 600% efficiency on those ideal days.
    Do power companies like electric heaters at 600% efficiency when now we use 100 max efficiency baseboard heaters (likely only 80 % due to location and poor heat transfer)
    When at their best, HPs may give up to 7.5 times better performance at parts of the year, then baseboard heaters, when optimum methods are used. Wonder what Synapse will conclude?
    Winston Adams

    ReplyDelete
  34. First with the news? VOCM? Voice Of the Common Man. Has things changed ? Who speaks for the average Joes and Janes? Uncle Gnarley?
    On the teens rally against climate change;
    CBC posted at 11:29,and with video, but seems to have been active on twitter about 10;30
    The Telly just a few lines, , but also a video, posted about the same time as CBC , but CBC has 10 times more in words. Both mention hundreds of high school students. My observation: much bigger than any protest on MFs. Also more girls than boys.
    NTV , under Breaking News, not a word.
    VOCM : nothing on the students, but a piece on Ball ,and Nick Whalen saying "Province Outlines Funding for Climate Change Action Plan, the scallywags with big smiles, announcing the same small funds over and over, bullshit do nothing programs. : help switch to a different fuel, enough money for next to nothing . And fuel saving devise for commercial truckers; is this air resistance deflectors or electric vehicles and charging stations? How about putting a 6 inch wind mill on the truck and produce 10 watts to boast the diesel engine power, a hybrid ? That should go viral.
    Would Greta be pleased with the politicians? Do they look panic mode, with those big smiles? Comments on CBC twitter seems 5 to 1 in favour. Oil worker is upset, blaming parents or others.
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
  35. Of course Keith has no use for Greta, could not say a single word positive. So what does Greta think today?
    The Guardian UK, piece : Greta Thunberg: Think we should be at school? Today's climate strike is the biggest lesson of all
    Her views as of today, and we see events at 2000 places around the world.
    I ask Keith to read it, and debate the facts she cites.
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
  36. Winston...one cannot debate facts. Here is my rebuttal. This is my preferred source. Please be fair-minded before responding.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2LltHjCLatmhZsihYLj755zfRY1SbhBzHhp7RDpOIuRFU39xItVNaGbNM

    Keith

    Cheers...Keith

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Difficult to discern the science from the politics. Currently, I prefer the following source on manmade effect on what is happening North of us, and affecting sea level rise, global hydrological systems;

      http://jamesbalog.com/portfolio/portfolio-extreme-ice-survey/

      Does Fox dare bring together these two prominent Scientists for a conversation? Let's leave politics out of data and observation analysis. The guy is a charmer Keith. Spend some time in a lab somewhere.

      Delete
    2. Robert...nice to see you back. I will take a look at it...promise. Rather than looking to discredit someone because they might not agree with you at least admit it is something worth considering.

      Beyond that stop deflecting. I ask you again what are your thoughts on Ms. Krause's research? You still have not respinded. Or is that "An Inconvenient Truth"?

      Keith

      Delete
    3. Keith, have a look at my post at 17:20 yesterday. Krause and her research is somewhat controversial on the Coast. Don't feel too bad about discrediting politically sourced writings.

      Delete
    4. Oh Robert...still deflecting. In case you are having trouble finding it here's the link.

      https://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/

      What are you thoughts on this campaign?

      Also with NL virtually bankrupt what should we do with the offshore oil resources now and into the future?

      These are things that I consider beyond what a teenager says in Davos.

      Keith

      Delete
    5. Keith is an inarticulate troll, incapable of doing anything but quote his favorite right wing zealot. He is best ignored as he does not respond to return responses.

      Delete
    6. Thanks Keith for the Vivian Krause Blog. She certainly believes that the Tar Sands project is worthy of the big dirty dig. The item about introducing herself to David Suzuki and his response is comical. I will look to some of her commentary in future regarding the Pembina writings. I usually take a daily spin of the National Post affiliates and CTV, to get some idea what the Tories are offering.

      Delete
    7. Yah buddy, if yor gonna start referencing paid shills on Faux News as if they're the preeminent experts in their field, you're lost pal... hopelessly lost.

      If you want solid, peer-researched info check out the following:

      https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/science-behind-climate-change/hadley

      Otherwise turn your brain back off and continue sucking up the Faux-flavoured bullshit.

      Delete
    8. Well put Anon. The problem is Keith is in denial and can't consider the consequences of climate change. If he does his head will explode!

      Delete
    9. Greta says "You need to panic, then you act" This is sound advice, coming from a child. The human response when faced with serious danger is the flight or fight response, when hormones kick in, your body adapts to survival mode, as when faced with the sudden appearance of a polar or grizzlie bear or cougar in your path, that wants to devour you.
      If there is no fear of climate change that is now happening, and science says getting much worse ahead, then there is no appropriate human response and no action taken.The response is mere denial of the facts and science, and seek information that only supports your biases of denial.
      Greta is honest and admits her fear, and has moved past being controlled by fear, to take actions; by her protests.
      Most of our politicians, and people like Keith, do not have nor admit fear of climate change. They do lip service, and smile, and are prepared to destroy our planet for most all living creatures, and really care not for the world they leave for their grandchildren. They want the good life now for their few remaining years. Old grey men, mostly, and grey women too, calling the shots, and many with interests in the fossil fuel industry. LOCK EM UP.
      OOPS....sorry to offend those who worked hard to deliver on the Atlantic Accord, which was great then, before we understood little of the science of climate change.
      Cognitive dissonance allows the brain to deny the facts and science and dangers, and continue the promotion of fossil fuel extraction.
      Winston Adams

      Delete
  37. Perhaps the most eye-opening day yet the Inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MA @ 16:08:

      What did you find revealing?

      PENG2

      Delete
    2. That the boots on the ground were no more prepared to do the job than they were at the top. But guess that would be a logical expectation, if they were not organized, well planned and prepared then that would be even worst on the ground. I only viewed the very last evidance, particularly by Mr. Snook, as I didn't know it was on. He was certainly not impressed and no way we're we organized to do the job. Of course the dome was just another indication of that, an after taught that was too late, and could never work anyway with the cranes etc. in such a confined area. So just a confirmation of what we already knew and it existed at all levels says Joe blow.

      Delete
    3. I didn't take notes, so not able to re-state the details.

      But poor, or virtually non-existent planning struck me as the biggest eye-opener, especially given Nalcor's oft-repeated mantra that engineering work had been and was continuing pre-sanction and in a very advanced stage and how that would ensure costs would be kept to a minimum.

      The 'working class heroes' (practical, expert witnesses) debunked any thought of the singular importance of that, e.g poor planning associated with the ICS (dome) alone may have cost $1 billion due in part to the loss of a full year of construction (and they explained very well some of the problems with the dome).

      Poor or non-existent planning goes back to the very early stages of this fiasco.

      Delete
    4. MA / AJ:

      The lack of planning or being capable to do the work wasn't for me a revelation, just confirming what was already said - I thought the most important discussion was between the Astaldi lawyer and LeBlanc on rules of evidence and the admission of 'heresay'. Yesterday does lead to more questions though.

      The actual cost of the Dome is easy - about $200M, the cost of the year of lost construction and its downstream effect is not so easy. The lost year at the generation location also factors into the decision making on how the DC line was built, the implications of wrecked turbine surfaces, increased PM costs etc - I couldn't say if $1B is right, but not out of the realm when starting to tally indirects.

      PENG2

      Delete
    5. The lack of planning for that time, at that level (construction phase) was eye-opening for me (and the lack of integrated resource planning during the early and pre-sanction phase for that matter) --- I had very early on argued generally with Bennett during an info session at CBS that there needed to be a transparent option selection/assessment and consultation process with the public before selecting Muskrat (I had outlined and prepared a graphic as far back as the mid 1980s that I was Coast Guard's Regional Project Manager on that was essentially the essence of what the inquiry experts refer to now as IRP ). I had labelled it "Rational Project Planning".

      So yes, I was surprised that even as late as the 1990's up to 2010, Nalcor did not use that planning approach.

      Delete
    6. And already we're hearing of rework by the replacement contractor.Like I said before this will continue adding to the final cost,if there ever is a final cost.

      Delete
  38. Keith, some food for thought on wild salmon;

    https://www.bcgreens.ca/salmon?utm_campaign=190315_salmon_announcement&utm_medium=email&utm_source=greenpartybc

    Has Vivian commented on this?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hey, Winston. My thought on the 230 kV overlay system is simply that it was working fine before MF came on the scene. Any additions since then should be charged to the MF project. With one assumption; that is, most growth, if any, is on the Avalon. Should Holyrood require retirement (likely), then CCGT in increments be placed on the Avalon close to the load. FW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes , the whole idea was to retire Holyrood, and now estimating to save about 150 million a year on fuel. Holyrood at almost 500 MW supplied the winter peak in addition to the 2-230 kv lines feeding east past Sunnyside. MFs was to replace Holyrood and some to spare.
      So the problem: With Holyrood retired, the DC line failure, we are short power on Eastern Avalon.
      When needing about 1800 MW for the island in a cold snap, how muc does eastern Avalon need, and how much can we get over the existing 2 lines? Does not extending the 3rd 230 kv line make sense, and is necessary, plus the new CCGTs for reliability?
      And if MFs is not very reliable , needing considerable CCGT operation and fuel burn, does not more Avalon Wind power make sense? CCGT should be a last resource, as to reduce GHG emissions.
      So all this as part of MFs?
      Nice to know the MW numbers, seeing we can not rely on NS imports.
      Winston

      Delete
    2. Yes Winston, when Holyrood finally shuts down, seems the only reliable back up and reliable power is more GT and wind developments on the Avalon, plus the third line extension to easter Avalon. No power from NS, any iodit would know that, that's why muskrat was built to give NS power, where in the hell are they going to get the power when muskrat goes down, from PEI wind, or pissen in the wind. When are they going to wake up and call a spade a spade and forget about pie in the sky. So give us your concrete plans for Christ sake, chess and ball et al, without nalcor bs, says Joe blow.

      Delete
  40. What's an NL voter to do? Ches or the Signal Hill- Quidi Vidi party? Decisions, decisions....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Either vote NDP, NL Alliance or ABI (Anyone But the Incumbent) so as to begin excising the mouldering, bipartisan rot that's been afflicting NL government for decades, or else spoil your ballot.

      Delete
    2. Yes, ABB- Anyone But Ball. Start the movement now. Start the chant. The districts of Mithelmore, Letto, please, please do the right thing.

      Delete
  41. Can anyone at the Telly do arithmetic? The lovely photo of smiling Ball and Nick Whalen and the climate change funding: 40 million, WOWWWWW!
    40 million over 3 years, 1/2 goes to assist towns etc, this part is 20 million over 3 years. So this is 6.6 million per year.Now having about 600 towns, this averages about 10,000.00 per town. But the amount is not only for towns but a share of that goes to business, govn agencies, industry etc, in all 7 different groups. This means each town would get much less than 10,000.00, and more like on average 1500.00. That would be enough to put up a sign showing a picture of Ball and Whalen of this cost shared program of a nothing burger. Net effect: no meaningful reduction of GHGs.
    The Telegram piece quotes these clowns as saying all Nlers should be pround of what they are doing to battle climate change.
    Proud? I repeat: LOCK'EM UP! There is no name to the author of this Telly trash piece, which is fitting as no analysis was done as to what is being offered and how meaningless the program.
    This was not promoted as "Premiun Content" by the TELY , so no need to pay the 4.99 a month to read that garbage.
    When Russess W gets the guts to write a good piece on Climate Change,as to this province, and calls out the scalllywags misleading the citizens, I will sign on to buying into the Tely, for a little Premium content. Until then I will pass, not worth 2 cents per month, as they fear retribution from ad revenue loss. Oh, the brave media. Russell don't like working with numbers, but is basic arithmetic so difficult?
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
  42. MA says yesterdays testimony perhaps the most eye opening yet. PENG2 asks what was so revealing. Must ave been something important, yet PENG2 did not think so?
    For me, my first visit to my cottage since October, with family health issue, including surgery at Houston , Texas, and serious chemo effects now nearing an end. My hybrid car not moved for 6 weeks, the battery down and had to charge it. Then on arrival to Bishop's Cove: holy moly, my well water frozen, the pipe and pump 150 ft from the house, in the well house. Almost gave up to return, having neither hot or cold water, but decided we could go camping style, with buckets. When I powered the pump, instead of the fuse blowing or the overheat safety cutting out, the pump smoked and the casing heated, until I unplugged it. I figured it was close to be shot then.
    I got a 400 watt heater and put by the pump cast iron casing for 2 hours. After 1 hour I tried it, and no go, just smoked some more. After 2 hrs the pump felt warm, not froze now I was sure. I would make one more try, but thinking it might be seized, even if not frozen. If I had a hammer to tap it? No hammer, but a brick near by. I would need to be quick, plug it it, have the torque on it, then immediately tap it. Having smoked twice already, I feared it would burn off the windings and be dead, but what the hell? So I plug it it,.... it hums, but not turning. I tap it with the brick,... Nothing. Not a good tap as a hammer would give. I expect more smoke for the death knell, but I tap it once more. Swooshhhhh. It did the trick. In 10 seconds the pressure gauge goes from zero to 50 and it cuts out. What a rugged motor I conclude. The pump came from Kents, a rugged machine, and about 250.00, and worked good for years.
    So we have comfort with cold and hot water. For water pumping, charge me 5.00 per kwh, and 5 cents for car charging an electric car!
    So .......the Inquiry events .....a big deal? Neither MA nor PENG2 inform us.Only AJ. Is MA and PENG2 vexed with each other? Seems so.
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
  43. So.......look at the timing, MA @11:31, PENG2 @ 11:45,And me @ 11:57; 3 obsessed MFs naysayers?
    MA suggest the common tradesmen as working class heroes, and PENG2 suggesting maybe their testimony should be excluded or ignored, as much of it being,in his opinion "heresay" evidence!
    Now, I am no legal expert, but hearsay is a tricky business in itself, and the common perception on admission of hearsay evidence is not so straight forward. I trust PENG2 is not promoting the myth of so called hearsy evidence of no value and discarded? Has PENG2 much experience on hearsay evidence, more than Leblanc maybe? Is someone whispering into the ear of PENG2?
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WA @ 12:16:

      You are 100% wrong in your interpretation - the 'heresay' discussion was important as it was getting into the differences of evidence rule for trials and Inquiry's. A number of time here I have started discussions on this topic to little interest.

      During my watching, even the Astaldi lawyer didn't challenge the admission of 'heresay' evidence.

      PENG2

      Delete
    2. How do you define hearsay, PENG2?
      Example, if on the stand, in a criminal proceeding, I say " The Mountie, Constable Porter, stated I was carrying a concealed weapon", and the lawyer for the Mountie jumps up and says "That's hearsay your honour, and not admissable" Did I give hearsay evidence that's not admissible? Or if any one can answer that?
      And fine to be 100% wrong on my interpretation, when having little to go on from your postings and not seeing the Inquiry events.
      Does this excuse the Nfld residents, SOMEWHAT for supporting MFs, as much they did not understand and also misinformed?
      Winston

      Delete
    3. WA @ 22:54:

      I am not a lawyer, but have been in a number of labour hearings and claims situations - so I do stand to be corrected.

      'Heresay' would be repeating a statement by someone who couldn't not be called to verify or debate - and it would have to be couldn't, wouldn't or didn't attend isn't the same.

      As I said above, the back-forth between the Astaldi lawyer and LeBlanc was most important to me because it set the tone as to what was admissible and showed the differences for evidence in trials and quasi-judicial hearings. I wasn't passing an opinion on what the panel said, just what was set as the benchmark on admissible - that's where your interpretation went of the rails on my comment.

      I don't think voters accepting a government B$ line is excusable - the PC government had a new mandate, ran on a MF platform and there was plenty of info available for people to raise questions. there was plenty of discussion in June 2011 for KD to get a voters mandate for MF - and she did by winning the election that fall (though I cant explain why).

      Even after all that was known on MF today, we will still likely re-elect several persons that voted for MF in 2011 - 100% inexcusable as far as I am concerned.

      PENG2

      Delete
    4. I did say "PENG2 suggesting MAYBE".......as I wan't sure what you were getting at, so I was prompting you for clarification, but guessed what you may have meant.
      So because I did include the word maybe, does that make 100 % wrong, and went off the rails? Could I be just 99% wrong or less?
      But my guess was wrong, as not much to go on.
      I think your view on hearsay is good, and as I understand it. The example I used, my statement is not hearsay as long as the person can be called to agree or refute.
      And yes even some would reelect MFs MHA today. You say 100% inexcusable. You go for absolutes more than I do. I say inexcusable, but not 100%. If only 40 % vote, most disgusted with MFs issue and with all parties. And of this 40%, 51% of them elect such a MHA, still the vast majority did not vote for that MHA. So is it then 100 % inexcusable ? Maybe the system is wrong, like the majority in the USA that voted ,did not vote for Trump, but due to their system he won.
      Many Nflders are not informed on important issues, I agree with you. That some or many would reelect those committing crimes even or bad ethics, seems also the case. But I do not say 100% inexcusable. Some voters are idiots, thought not certified, and so this is excusable! Some are easily fooled . Some are too lazy to get informed. Some are not at all technical to understand what is complex. So, I think we need to excuse some portion, some as lost causes, and others needing to smarten up or we all pay a big price. That leaves hope. Maybe that's why UG exists, to advance hope, and why people comment, to enlighten with truth and facts, as far as we can do that, despite our individuals biases.
      Sounds like we have to forgive those that do foolish things? As no criminal charges can result, must we forgive, and hope to do better? Heracles says we must hurt ourselves badly to learn a lesson. We sure have hurt ourselves.
      So do you support the student strikes? Are we presently on the wrong road to halt climate change?
      Winston

      Delete
    5. WA @ 01:01:

      I said you went off the rails interms of the full sentence where you said I thought the evidence was 'heresay', whereas my comment above was only stating I thought the most important interaction of the day was between LeBLanc and the Astaldi lawyer regarding 'heresay'. This interaction was important (possibly more important than what was actually said) because it sets the playing field as to what LeBlanc will/will not allow as evidence.

      For people that don't vote - I am not so forgiving as you. I also take a hard line in that we have to own the mistakes of a government we elect on a known platform. Considering MF, the voters could have stopped it in the Fall of 2011 but didn't - either willfully blind, naive or conned doesn't make much difference to the fact we could have stopped Mf and didnt.

      For climate change, we all absolutely need to live responsibly - but even if NLer's reduce their GHG contribution by 50% wont have a global effect except leading by example. Canada produces about 1.65% of global GHG and NL produces less than 2% of Canada's total - we in NL can only lead by example since we don't actually have a global effect. Infact considering our green-space : GHG production ratio we are probably GHG neutral, but this attitude isn't leading by example like we should in Canada.

      PENG2

      Delete
    6. Agree that because our population is small, our GHG emissions is relatively small as to the global volume. On the other hand , per person carbon footprint in Canad and the USA is among the highest in the world, and we among the richest countries and able to do more.
      Norway I think is doing much , and similar to Nfld and Canada with vast natural resources.
      Some countries can lead by example, but unless all countries pull in the same direction, there is no solution.
      Balls Plan is a nothing burger, is it not?
      As to the boondoggle,Maybe I am not more forgiving than you.....
      I prefer to see the scallywags punished by our justice system, but you point out that the Inquiry process cannot do that, and I wonder if you would like to see than punished. You entirely, or mostly blame the voters , maybe 100%.
      You say it could have been stopped. It was not stopped, and key is why it was not stopped but could have been? We had what, 10 years or more to bring sanity to the situation, which suggests what, most maybe insane here? If we could roll back time, what could have stopped it? Very few saw the big picture, and of those, too many were silent. Maybe not much different from Brexit........not knowing what they ere doing.So the idea: Forgive them for they know not what they do?
      Winston

      Delete
    7. PENG2, Canada is 9th worst country in the world for GHG, worse than Saudi Arabia which is 10th. China is worst of all, due to the large population USA is second worse.
      Saudi Arabia is 10th yet No 1 as to production, maybe now US equal to them .
      So Like Saudi Arabia , worse per person, yet 10th as a country, they produce more oil than anyone.......so they grow rich by selling and others get tagged for using it.
      So too, Nfld , not that much consumed, but as to production, our contribution to the worls supply is about 6 times more than your consumption figures suggest. So such figures can be played with. Like selling deadly drugs, produced one place , consumed somewhere else, so who is at fault , the producer or those that consume?
      So, the student strike, do you support it or not? Are not adults acting like children and children more like adults on this issue?
      Winston

      Delete
    8. WA @ 18:22:

      I am not sure of the source of your data, but by my numbers NL’s oil production is about 4.5% of Canada production and~0.2% of global production - so I don’t quite follow why you say our impact is 6x more than my original consumption numbers indicated. Our oil fields produce about 170k (global production is ~93M daily) barrels daily and the CBC refines about 120k barrels daily out of the global capacity of ~98M barrels. Could you clarify why you said 6 times worse above?

      Agreed however that we are about #10 per capita, and globally on a tonnage basis (but still only 1.65% of globally mass production while about 22t per capita) – we do need to do better, but I standby my statement that NL (or even Canada for that matter) reducing GHG production will do little to affect global climatic trends – our biggest impact would be setting an example. What is interesting is that our per capita production has been pretty stable over the past 20yrs, while many other countries are beginning/continuing to increase their per capita production – more or less we will likely drop to #20 per capita in 10-15yrs, though this would an artificial ‘improvement’. And no doubt, numbers can be used to prove most anything.

      As a principle I support all efforts to reduce consumption or wasteful living – I try my best to be a prudent consumer of resources.

      PENG2

      Delete
  44. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/legault-buy-shares-snc-lavalin-1.5059410

    While we are off the subject, how about this one for governments supporting illegal activity and companies that operate outside the law. Will Canadian values re-elect these people federally and provincially??

    ReplyDelete
  45. CBCNL: Following the Mushuau Innu Caribou Hunt.
    A remarkable video, filmed by CBC in 1979, 5 years before I travelled to Davis Inlet to see first hand and meet some Naskaupi Indians. This film shows how the Beothic probably lived and their skills at hunting and survival.
    UG readers may recall my recent comment about the Telegram "Breaking News" about Hopedale, and my comment about Esau F Adams being left behind in Labrador in the winter of 1939-1940 and his encounter with the Naskaupi and Eskimo.
    I am in possession of some artifacts of Naskaupi and Eskimo origin.Note the unique style of the Naskaupi snow shoes and some are decorated with colored yarn around the perimeter. And too , it mentions killing caribou with bow and arrow, thought this film shows using guns. I have both Naukaupi arrows and snow shoes, and Eskimo Arrows, that perhaps should be in a museum, but are highly valued due to the history of these items.
    I highly recommend this film to be seen:there is a link via You Tube, and may also be seen on Land and Sea.
    Winston Adams

    ReplyDelete
  46. Interesting that some major oil companies,at the Houston event this week,attracting 4000, including Husky and suncor support the carbon tax. Why? One reason is that govn passes back much of the tax to them to research ways that reduce the emissions. Makes no difference that the research may be useless,and emissions keep climbing, and supporting the carbon tax is good PR for the industry. What games are played!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Today VOCM repeatedly stating the Ball announcement of the nothing burger expenditure for climate change, as if a significant amount and meaningful. Even tonight on Cabin Party.
    VOCM also waited until nearly 2pm to report on the student march whereas the Telly and CBC reported by 11;30 am. VOCM was busy pushing the nothing burger for the government Friday morning.
    VOCM.....NOT the voice of the common man. Propaganda voice for the govn?
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
  48. There are lies, more lies and then dam lies all piled into their plans that we are supposed to swallow hook line and sinker. Most have had their turn critizing balls plan of metigation, way forward etc. including yours truly, as well as guest post on UG. Chess has escaped unscathed so far with his plan, of course he has not put forward many, just one last week. Chess and his best effort seemed quite simple and cheap was Winston described it. He could have done his arithmetic on one side of a match box, all quite simple he said, just move the numbers around, and make nalcor pay their fair share and bingo the rate is 14.5 cents. Did chess miss a few zeros and use 13 million as the cost of muskrat rather than 13 billion?? Then he said if that didn't work he would force HQ to the table for a sweet deal on Upper Churchill, or threaten to charge them more taxes on the power we sell them. Has chess been asleep at the wheel for the past 50 years and now just waking up. Has mr. Vardy and others had a look at his numbers yet, to at least see if he his using too many or too few zeroes. If his numbers are correct guess it makes a fool out of UG and a lot of his guess post. Come on chess put all your numbers out there so those that are in the know can at least see them in some detail says Joe blow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we tax them more, they'll in turn just shut the water off to Muskrat (because they can).

      Delete
    2. NL can not tax HQ for the power; it is CFLCo they can tax. A tax increase will have to be absorbed entirely by CFLCo and CFLCo can not charge it back to HQ. Remember the last judgement from SCC ? They confirmed that HQ is legitimately entitled to receive the power at the price fixed in the contract.

      Because CFLCo is owned at 34.2% by HQ, to tax CFLCo down to where they do not have a single penny for their internal benefit would only recover the 34.2% share from HQ, so about 30-few millions a year. Should CFLCo ended up bankrupted by that tax, then HQ will have to pay that tax, but in exchange will received increase ownership in CFLCo.

      So go ahead, increase the tax on CF power for HQ to increase their ownership in the power plant and NL reduces its own.

      Delete
    3. I believe even BRINCO/CFLCo's 99 years Churchill river "water rights" also included protections against disguised "lease" increases - like via additional taxes.

      I guess those BRINCO folks did trust Joey, but just to an extent

      Delete
  49. Wish UG would just disable the blog commentary, or at least limit the number of times an individual commentator can post on a given column.

    The colossal amounts of rambling, repetitious, asinine blather.. indeed, sheer bullshit.. originating from the same few monopolizers obsessing over their pet topics (and they know who they are) has quite negatively impacted the blog's purpose as a forum for open, informative discussion on the issues of the day.. to the degree that any fresh and thought-provoking commentary is overwhelmed and buried in the non-stop avalanche of fetid, steaming bullshit being excreted incessantly on to this blog.

    Most unfortunate... most unfortunate indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon @ 11:37
      Sounds like you're advocating "no more talk on MF". Are you one of those with their fingers in the pie?

      Delete
    2. Wow now there's a guy who knows what he is talking about , besides bullshit, blabber rambling and gives UG some unsolicited advice. .what a great contribution. Stand back boys and gals and let this fountain of wisdom and mature and thought-provoking discussion have his way, so he won't be overwhelmed with his God given right to decide what is bullshit of the day and what is pure white manna from heaven. I yield the right of way, hope others are willing to do the same. Stand by UG and friends we are about to enlightened, probably with mouthfuls of foul, repugnant regutulated language never head before since the dawning of time warns Joe blow.

      Delete
  50. As to the offshore oil/gas.
    Who is familiar wit Vision 2030?
    Here we have Vision 2041, MA's blog as to the CFs contract.
    We had the Vision 2041 Group, Cashin etc early on that fizzled out.
    Vision 2030 is that of the Saudi Prince that chops up his enemies with a meat saw. MBS he is known by, who is ruthless, but a visionary too.
    500 million is the cost of his pleasure boat. Like Nfld, they have oil on the brain, a kind of sickness, like the Nfld song about cod liver oil.
    Now MBS knows the writing is on the wall for oil wealth. If we are to preserve the planets environment from disaster, then 80 % of all known oil reserves must stay in the ground....so where does that leave Saudi Arabia? His plan, Vision 2030, was to sell off some of the holdings, starting now at 5 % to be sold. If you dump assets too quick it could be detrimental, so start the process and convert it to cash and maybe invest worldwide into other assets , say like Norway did to become very rich and less dependant on fossil fuel.
    Then too a year or more ago , he hired the top USA firms for plans for energy efficiency, to modernise the buildings of his country, and have a lower carbon foot print, and lees oil used locally. Here in Nfld we have a winter heating problem , there it is a burn your ass heat problem with air conditioning loads.
    So his 2030 Vision was along those lines, a rich oil country not wanting all their eggs in one basket.
    A few months ago he was to host an international meeting with the big banks and multinational companies , many top American firms invited, that they participate in his Vision. But the meat saw event with the Washington Post journalist was a downer .... many refused to attend, such as Virgin's Airline Branston, and many others.
    But is vision to diversify and go energy efficient was prudent. Something to consider here for too much dependence on the offshore.
    GHG emissions, we are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Now the balance is heavy on being part of the problem.
    Our island hydro resource.....up to 45 % is wasted. If MBS is hiring top firms to tackle their waste, and they floating with oil, where is our Conservation and Efficiency Plan? A nothing burger! Our oil/gas may become a stranded asset. Maybe we should unload some to the Feds.

    Winston Adams

    ReplyDelete