Monday, 17 June 2019

PAUL DAVIS KEPT LID ON RELEASE OF COST OVERRUNS PRIOR TO 2015 GENERAL ELECTION

The Commission of Inquiry into the Muskrat Falls Project has heard plenty of evidence regarding how Nalcor CEO ED Martin failed to report to either the Board or the Government the truth about cost overruns and the delay in the project schedule.

Nalcor’s deceit is only one sub-text of a larger issue, to be sure. Another is that the Board and the Government — politicians and bureaucrats — supported and accommodated Nalcor’s secrecy, most effectively by suppressing bad news under the guise of “commercial sensitivity”.  

The Inquiry has now heard evidence that the September 2015 costs, which had grown to $7.65 billion (up from $6.99 billion announced in June 2014), were significantly understated. First power would be late by two years, too. Concerns that Nalcor had understated those issues made their way into a new EY Report in the early part of 2015. The Report’s existence created a big problem for the Paul Davis Government. The bureaucrats on the Oversight Committee understood foot-dragging well and Nalcor were never found without reasons why the truth hardly mattered.


As a matter of history, following sanction critics of the Project had called for independent oversight of the project. Premier Cathy Dunderdale ignored the call. Tom Marshall, succeeding her, installed what critics referred to as “fake” oversight. His Oversight Committee was comprised solely of senior public servants, none of whom were engineers or possessed megaproject experience.
Michael Kennedy, EY Consultant to MF Oversight Committee 


The Committee was permitted, however, to employ the Consultancy Ernst and Young (EY), capable of asking pertinent questions and conducting investigations. In addition, the Oversight Committee was headed by the Clerk of the Executive Council, Julia Mullaley — who reported directly to the Premier — placing Premier Paul Davis in the centre of the decision to keep the critical EY Report away from public view.

Today’s narrative is focussed on EY. The firm was engaged to perform “Project data and documentation, as well as structured interviews with Nalcor personnel”. EY’s reporting period spanned December 2014 to February 2015. Its Report is entitled “Review of Muskrat Falls Cost and Schedule Management Processes and Controls”.

EY’s analysis was completed in April and May 2015, and should have been released to the public a short time later. But it wasn’t. It bounced between Government and Nalcor for the remainder of the Davis Administration, until voters kicked out the Tories.

2015 was a year rife with news of a project off the rails, and a Tory Government in freefall in the Polls since the unceremonious dismissal of Premier Dunderdale. Paul Davis hoped that he might still salvage a new mandate for the PC Party. One of the decisions that he made in pursuit of that objective was to make sure that the true state of the Muskrat Falls Project was not made public before polling day, November 30.

It wasn’t until Michael Kennedy of EY was examined as a Witness at the Muskrat Falls Inquiry on May 13, 2019 that illumination was shed on the political and bureaucratic complicity that transpired to keep the Report under wraps.

From here, I will let the lead on the EY Team, Michael Kennedy, and Inquiry Co-Council, Barry Learmonth, tell the story. I will attempt, for the purpose of brevity, to record only the most salient excerpts of the testimony. The scene, of course, is the Muskrat Falls Inquiry.  Michael Kennedy is explaining to Barry Learmonth EY’s experience dealing with Nalcor officials and the Oversight Committee in the course of their work.

Almost from the beginning, Kennedy notes that on any major project, “the baseline is where you start and then you measure progress against that, in terms of cost and schedule.”

He concurs with comments contained in Exhibit P-03413 from which Learmonth is reading, and he agrees that Muskrat’s “contingency and contingency forecast are weak”. Continuing, he adds: “I believe, that from July 2014, that Astaldi’s updated schedule (which Nalcor knew in 2013 had suffered major delays) had not been built into the Integrated Project Schedule which… builds a sense that there are some serious problems.” The Exhibit suggests the “likely need for re-baselining [and a] potential change to execution strategy.”

Mr. M. Kennedy: There is a serious problem on the project.

Mr. Learmonth: A serious problem.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes.

Learmonth brings forward evidence (Exhibit P-03328) that Nalcor is not acknowledging that EY has identified the “serious problem”. Instead, Nalcor is complaining to Oversight Committee official, Craig Martin, not that EY is being diligent but that they are going outside their Scope of Work.

Reference turns to a quote in paragraph 1 of the same Exhibit, an email written by Richard Noble of EY to his associates and to the Oversight Committee, in which he states: “In my 17 years’ experience of conducting project reviews and audits, it is highly unusual when assessing cost and schedule management that you would be constrained from examining the processes/basis of plans and estimates to start with. These underpin cost and schedule performance and its management. Everyone knows that.” 

As the Inquiry has heard from several witnesses, Nalcor’s derision for EY is palpable, even refusing the Government’s request that it be involved in negotiations to settle the $800 million Astaldi claim. Evidently the disdain escalated at an early stage. A meeting held between EY and Paul Harrington, Muskrat Falls Project Director, is recorded in an email from EY official Emiliano Mancini dated May 6, 2015: “As soon as EY prepares to formulate the first question, Paul Harrington interrupted the meeting and left saying that he was expecting a debriefing and was not prepared to respond to any questions.”

Ensuing emails introduced by Counsel Barry Learmonth show that Nalcor has not been performing risk analysis of the cost and schedule, which has EY’s Kennedy stating if such risk analysis “wasn’t used after 2012, that would be a concern” and adding that “industry practice on projects of this type… most frequently take place every six months.”

As EY battles Nalcor for detailed information on costs and schedule and finishes a draft of the “Project Review”, EY finds out that the Oversight Committee is siding with Nalcor. Learmonth brings up an email dated June 5, 2015 which displays the Oversight Committee’s concern not about the Report’s contents but its format — lest it be available to the public through ATIPP. (So much for oversight!)

In addition, by June 8, 2015 Exhibit P-03417 reveals that Nalcor has reviewed the draft and is seeking a “significant re-write”. EY is having none of it. In an email dated June 25, 2015 EY’s David Steel informs Craig Martin of the Oversight Committee that “we’d advise very minor changes to the report.” Michael Kennedy put a finer point on EY’s position for Learmonth. He said: “We paid close attention to [Nalcor’s objections but] we disagreed… with the points that Nalcor were raising.”

As noted, this is now June 2015, but by August 12th EY has revised the draft Report to the Oversight Committee (P-03419) “after taking into account Nalcor’s comments.” The Report, as Learmonth noted, took “a little longer than eight weeks that [sic] were contemplated.”

Kennedy notes that the delay was due to the “backwards and forwards between governments and Nalcor on drafts of the report.” The final report emerging from the edits (Exhibit P-03583) is dated October 29, 2015. But the Report is still not released to the public.

And, Learmonth notes, the review has been watered down. He refers to limitations on page 5 of the Report which describes a list of exclusions “from the scope of the review.” He notes: “The estimating processes and cost baseline process were not assessed.” In addition — and this is important — the Oversight Committee had decided to rely on the results of Nalcor’s Decision Gate (DG) approval process reviewed by MHI (with which Nalcor had interfered while Government bureaucrats removed from their scope of work a risk assessment of the project).

The Oversight Committee also instructed EY that it would rely on the DG3 review by the Independent Engineer (which had done only a high-level assessment and did not review the project cost estimates; the Inquiry heard that Nalcor had been allowed to edit the Independent Engineer’s Report, too). Possibly, the Oversight Committee was unaware but more likely oblivious – one of its own having been the Government’s go-between with Nalcor - to their meddling in Reports which effectively offered no value from an oversight perspective.

Why were those items omitted from the EY scope of work? Says Kennedy: “Because we didn’t have… definitive forecasts provided by Nalcor.”  On top of that, the EY Report revealed that the Consultancy had been cut out of an assessment of Nalcor’s “Change Management and Risk Management processes.” Instead, the Report indicates that the Oversight Committee had chosen to accept Nalcor’s Internal Audit reports for reliance purposes.

That decision also gave EY considerable concern because, as Kennedy noted (Exhibit P-03331), “you can use that information or data that is being prepared as long as you have been through a reliance process.” Asks Learmonth, “So, it’s not a substitute then?” To this Kennedy replies, “No.”

“Do you know what qualifications the Oversight Committee would [have] to make that assessment?” Learmonth asks Kennedy. “I can’t speak to that,” he replies.

Learmonth pursues the issue of the Report’s delay: “So this is October 2015, and you started your work on this project in March, 2014… does that appear to you to be a long period of time?” Replied Kennedy: “It took a long time to get to October 2015, to be highlighting further levels of details of the issues that we were identifying over a year earlier.”

EY notes that “the Oversight Committee is presenting Nalcor’s viewpoint and EY’s viewpoint without putting forward its own viewpoint.” Release of the Report is further delayed. Nalcor, having failed to get EY to come to a different set of conclusions, has now invoked control via suggestions of “commercial sensitivity” which the CEO is permitted to characterize as he sees fit.  The Oversight Committee is seen buying into Nalcor’s new attempt keep the EY Report under wraps.

As noted already, the Oversight Committee is responsible to the Cabinet — effectively, the Premier. There is no mistaking, therefore, that Premier Paul Davis is fully informed about a project gone totally off the rails.

A General Election looms and the EY Report remains in draft.

Learmonth’s interview of EY’s Paul Kennedy continues.  In Exhibit P-03337, EY investigator Richard Noble is emailing Team Member David Steele who says, “Sorry David… But we first need to qualify the commercial sensitivity with Nalcor.” Learmonth continues to read from the email: “We don’t know what Nalcor’s thinking is for a majority (10/11) of items identified commercially sensitive… we can hypothesize… but it is not clear why they see them as such.”

Learmonth’s examination then turns to an email from Craig Martin of the Oversight Committee dated October 26, 2015. The Committee has now invoked the idea of splitting the EY Report into “two separate reports (one with the confidential info and one without) in order to  address Commercial Sensitivity concerns raised” by Nalcor.

On October 28, 2015 Richard Noble reports to Craig Martin that the Report has been redrafted “into two parts as requested.”

But it doesn’t much matter. Both EY Reports remain shielded from public view. The results of the General Election on November 30, 2015 overtake any further involvement in the Reports under the Tories.

Mr. Learmonth brings up Exhibit P-03340. He notes that the election is over and Premier Ball “is now in the Premier’s Chair.” The Exhibit contains an email from Paul Hickey and he writes: “I just got off the phone with the Premier. He has asked Julia to talk to David about a full review of Muskrat Falls.”

For those who always wondered how they could for so long be denied the real story of Muskrat Falls and cost overruns to $12.7 billion… and a two-year delay in the Schedule… well, now you know.

With good reason, former Premier Paul Davis should be dragged back before the Inquiry and held to account. But that’s the call of Commissioner Richard LeBlanc.

44 comments:

  1. COLLUSION!!!! Nope not with the Russians but by our very own Nalcor, government officials, elected officials including to the very top, the premier. WHY???? TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION. The only sane part of it is they were unsuccessful. The people saw right through it in that election. We are smarter than the blind Americans. But it almost happen in the past election, but most of the players were different, but same political party. Goes back to support a lot of the comments I have made on this blog. The people of this province are quite willing to place political partisan above patronism, or concern for their province. Yes we had options as a people, NDP one clear example or the liberals that were not responsible for this project when they were in opposition. And of course when the vote in the legislature was called on sanction in 2012 all the opposition parties voted against it. And we will repeat muskrat boondoggles in the future again, anytime we place partisan politics over what's best for the province and the people. Average Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent post UG, and at last 'begins' to show the link (or collusion) between the political, public service and Nalcor entities to push Muskrat through, no matter what.

    Premier(s), cabinet, senior public servants, oversight committee and Nalcor all in cahoots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly Maurice. All in cahoots and all determined to keep the public in the dark! What a tangled web they weave eh Maurice?

      Delete
  3. Hmmm....,
    I wonder exactly how all of those notebooks got “inadvertently” destroyed?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also goes to show that there isn't one smart person in the lot.
    Lots of connivers, back stabbers, cork screwers and dirty dealers, all without a lick of sense.
    Some here say we did it to ourselves.
    Perhaps they are right.

    BUT, but, what are we going to do now.
    The truth is coming out from under the layers but there is no plan.
    There is no mitigation.
    There is no budget.

    Light bills are going to double; there will not be a new penitentiary, there will be more misery.
    Wish I were wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree we are going to pay for it,either by higher rates or higher taxes,plus less services.There is no way out of it,period,despite the continuing BS from politicians.

      Delete
  5. The public are sheep. The public service is infested with parasites and predators. The politicians are mostly parasites, with a few predators and many sociopaths. So it is a fight between the common citizen and abusers.

    It reminds me of Orwell's 1984 (once required reading in NL schools). The "Party" in our case is a two headed Liberal/PC monster.

    "If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. Its enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. Even if the legendary Brotherhood existed, as just possibly it might, it was inconceivable that its members could ever assemble in larger numbers than twos and threes. Rebellion meant a look in the eyes, an inflection of the voice; at the most, an occasional whispered word. But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They need only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Proles are in a deep slumber. Best not to have ideas and raise ones head. Misery is comfort in common. Leaders are quickly identified as aberrant and are isolated despite telling the truth.

      As Stephen Colbert says truthiness rules the world today! As Dunderdale and Davis and Williams and Ed Martin etc knew from the outset to shut up and keep the sheep in the dark while the treasury was looted.

      They all have blood on their hands and no one with balls remains to even ask the right questions.

      The bastards will wail for the spur to fail. I heard one idiot testify that seeps would warn of impending failure of the spur showing no understanding of progressive , rapid (less than an hour) slides.

      Delete
  6. the future is bleak
    Martin is definitely from the other side of the looking glass
    $ billions from dividends to mitigate rates for rate-payers
    but dividends must come from rate-payers
    he has invented perpetual money-making machine, money goes in one pocket, comes back through other
    more like Ponzi scheme except ratepayers left holding bag of pooh

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh boys, what lies the've told. !!!! Just a continuation of the COLLUSION. HOw did the notes all disappear ...COLLUSION...why were all the lies told....COLLUSION, ..to cover it all up and keep the people in the dark as long as possible. What if they had won the 2015 election???? Still covered up. But leaking out gradually. Eddie would still be on the job....only a few numbers leaking out. It reach right up to the highest level of the COPS. MAullay had to stand up to EM to bring in ;EY...she had to go to the premier's office to get approval to bring in EY. The chief of staff, Browne had to take it to the premier to get it approved. In 2014 and 2015 the ministers of finance were Johnson, and Wiseman, where are they??? It's all becoming clearer...when will the RCMP be called in ask average Joe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe Dudley Dooright is in on the gag. Expect no white horses on the horizon!

      Delete
  8. With government boasting about accountability and transparency it should be very concerning that Deputy Ministers, Clerks of the Executive Council and Cabinet Ministers (including Premiers) have consistently been unable to locate notes taken during this failed project or whose memories are so faulty they cannot remember.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no rule of law other than he with the gold makes the rules and appoints the judges. Powerful people and corporations are effectively above the law and have special perks like deferred prosecution agreements (fines rather than CEO jail time) or cases that take so long that that charges are dropped. Laws are to ensure the maintenance of the status quo and have nothing to do with fairness or justice. You see the cynicism everywhere with spellings like just-us and references to a two tiered justice system or "too big to jail".

      So far the only people that have served time are protestors.

      Delete
  9. It reminds me of 911. There is no way to accomplish the controlled demolition of three large steel/concrete buildings, an air "crash" site with no debris and dozens of other coincidences and anomalies without hundreds of people cooperating, either by actively planning it or enabling it by intentionally turning a blind eye. What common bond keeps their silence? Were they paid off?

    The insurance payout for the 911 towers was US$4.6 billion. Muskrat Falls is more than double that.

    Muskrat Falls also need some ring leaders to plan it, but also needed was cooperation from most of the upper management of natural resources, nalcor, finance, most of the politicians, the press (VOCM, CBC/nl, NTV, Telegram), banks, the federal government and many more. It could have easily been derailed, had the AG freaked out, politicians refused to back it, FORTIS declared the project dangerous/insane, the "independent engineer" going public, journalists publishing damning material ... instead people collected their paychecks and covered their rear ends with lack of documentation and even destroying evidence. What common bond kept all these enablers in line?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Show me the MONEY!

      With a mega project dose of EGO thrown in for good measure!

      Delete
    2. I suggest the common bond is the tendency for wilful blindness, which is both a civil and criminal offence, and is the same as wilful ignorance, where you chose to ignore or questions what are red flags. Ignorance is no excuse for this offence, so saying you just didn't know is not an excuse.
      Which lawyer at this commission or even the Commissioner will ask the questions " do you understand the significance of wilful blindness? Junior officials may not, but top officials with lawyers and accounting advice, from what I have read, "the question should send a shiver down their spine". Does this Inquiry even want to cause shivers?
      Winston Adams

      Delete
    3. Seems Erin Breen almost said it: she said the current witness has blinders on, and ignored a flag. This in general is wilful blindness, but beating around the bush, as if it is a small issue, but dozens involved in wilful blindness including this witness, who just smiles and says not his focus to ask questions. Spineless people, all of them, including of this Inquiry not to be more direct as to questioning and tolerating the BS answers given.
      Winston Adams

      Delete
    4. A dose of malevolent narcissism and lots and lots of cash to shut up the insiders with any political power, while we poor souls whistled in the wind about the cost, need, spur, demand etc. The chump was disempowered by regulatory neutering and I still don't get that not even one good man stood up at this point and demanded answers. Why were the PUB and JRP denied the financial info needed to determine the cost and need.

      Delete
  10. The well of deceit and collaborative blindsiding the public runs very deep. And I agree, Paul Davis needs to be brought back to account for this as well. It takes many crooks to commit this massive fraud

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is quite apparent that responsible self-government is beyond the capability of the Newfies.

    The only Commonwealth state to ever renounce responsible government because the inept and corrupted locals just weren't up to it.

    This province is in desperate need of an intervention to protect itself from further self-harm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have heard that one before, maybe by the same author.

      Delete
    2. Nonetheless... still quite valid, unfortunately.

      Delete
    3. Yes, keep repeating it, you will eventually believe it, and not just write it. Trump is like that too, repeats until he believes.

      Delete
    4. Anon 00:04 problem for you and your fellow apologists, the politicians and senior govt. officials keep repeating the same self-inflicted mistakes.. Ms. Brewer, the latest example of an incompetent whale-like person who gets a seat at top of civil service without a freaking clue as to what she's supposed to do with public money .... oh shur every bid comes in low and costs climb, shur we expects dat, i'm just here to get fat on da public and let whoever let me suck the place dry

      Delete
    5. There is dem, and those and these and dat, if you don't like it shut your trap...

      Delete
    6. So anon 00:04, you actually believe these goddanmed skeets and dimwitted fools are competent and trustworthy enough to deliver proper governance in the best interests of the citizenry?

      What kind of fairy-tale dreamworld must you be living in then?

      Delete
    7. There a many highly competent and ethical people within this government. However, they area a minority and kept in check by a critical mass of bad people. By bad I mean they are not in senior positions by merit or qualifications, they are simply there because of personal or political connections. These people are just like the terrible people we see at this inquiry. There are Ed Martin clones throughout government.

      If you were to purge the executive (DM / ADMs / Directors) of all departments and bring in a 3rd party agency to conduct proper recruitment drive, the problem of competent governance could be solved. Nothing less than a wholesale purge will do. The new employees would then have to rebuild every department into something functional.

      Delete
  12. Bern Coffey brought out an important point ---- for a company as large as Nalcor, the shareholder had (and has) NO MEMBER on the board of directors.

    A convenient way to avoid a written record, no clear reporting responsibility up through any government department, and ultimately no timely political accountability, it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just read the article again and I find it shocking that only EY was ethical. "Both EY Reports remain shielded from public view." -- will they be published by the inquiry?

    How can so many people be so thoroughly corrupt? How did Crook of the Executive Council, Julia Mullaley become our Auditor General? Was she appointed as a gift for her part in this fraud?

    The whole system is so corrupt that it cannot be cleaned up from within. It needs an intervention - a massive intervention.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would put Brendan Paddock in a category not that different than Ed Martin. And I will leave it there.

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://vocm.com/news/stress-on-nalcor-staff-taking-a-major-toll-says-board-chair/

    What a crock of shit!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tuned in during Leblanc's questions and Paddick spewed useless garbage. When asked about Nalcor's plans for Churchill Falls in 2041, Paddick said Quebec would have to build 6 or 7 Muskrats and that's not possible he said. Well, Paddick should resign today because he is clueless to energy markets and trends. HQ could bring on 5000MW of wind or other renewables very quickly and on very good financing terms that may look better than the cost of renewing aging transmission infrastructure. Who knows what other viable options will exist on another 20 years. Plus HQ can do plenty of CDM if they choose so maybe they won't need the full 5000MW. Yet, Mega hydro is all fools like Paddick can think of. They are probably still hoping to do Gull Island yet.

      Delete
  16. I can't leave it there.

    So as Chair of the Nalcor Board, he will wait till Muskrat is finished before strategizing on how to best prepare for the pending 2041 arrival of 5500 MW of Upper Churchill power.

    Peachy ---- just peachy.

    Not doing Muskrat and thereby not destroying the province's fiscal strength would have been a good place to start (which the very name of my 2012 www.vision2041 website pointed toward.

    But I was only one of the many of Paddick's "naysayers" who he, not even now, cannot admit was at least a decade ahead him, Martin and the others who continue to lead (drag) this province into the gutter.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's absolutely horrific to see such Incompetence in the current Board Chairman. Who is he working for? Not for us the ratepayers. I think he's working to or orchestrate business deals. The failure of Nalcor will be an opportunistic frenzy of profitable dealmaking for business tycoons like Paddick and Marshall. The higher the financial stress they impose on the public assets, the better their private opportunities. The wolves are running the henhouse.

      Delete
    2. It was called "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Kline. Get ready for the assault on your social services.

      Delete
  17. Two of my earlier posts essentially saying what the expert witness is putting forth:---


    Maurice Adams31 May 2019 at 09:33

    There has been much inquiry focus on what is referred to as an 'aggressive schedule' --- as if the problem was that Nalcor should have allocated 6 instead of 4 years to complete and that was the major issue.

    But the project could have been done in the 4 years IF Nalcor had properly assessed AND COSTED the resources needed to get it done in 4 years.

    BUT THAT WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE REAL COST TO HAVE BEEN ABOUT $10 BILLION --- and that was not on.

    So, just leave the cost and schedule at the $6 billion and 4 year projection to make all things look more palatable.

    I would suggest that from beginning Nalcor knew or should have known that the real cost would be around the $10 billion mark. So the so-called 'aggressive schedule' focus is in some ways kind of a straw man.

    There should be a much stronger focus/investigation into the demand, oil price forecasts, original,etc. estimates.

    Maurice Adams15 June 2019 at 11:25

    And it has long been my view that the cost estimates were purposely, and from the beginning understated (and the demand and oil price/CPW difference overstated) so as to achieve public, house of assembly, opposition party, and cabinet/government approval/sanction.

    Then the real costs would be increased incrementally --- in digestible chunks, so as to not stir public opinion (just like turning up the water temperature on a frog slowly so that it won't notice what is happening to it).

    Nothing unintentional about this, and therefore these so-called cost overages/overruns caan only be characterized as 'overruns' when comparing them to the original 'publicly advertised' cost estimates.

    If the need, costs and risks had been properly assessed in the beginning, the public would have known back in 2011 that these were overstated, understated and unassessed respectively --- consistent with my comment to the CBC in early 2011 that "we don't need it, can't afford it, and it's too high as risk" .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But did CBC not air your comment? Also don't forget "not reliable"
      Did they recently say the DC line was 99 % on,and I pointed out that means it is off about 24 hrs, so very bad. And now Paddick say 99.99, or 99.999 % on.......? 99.99 is off 8.76 hrs , twice as bad as our present outage standard of 2.8 hrs, and 99.999 is power off 0.876 hrs, so 3 times better than present, so as good as Bruno promises with wind and Bruno batteries ( a Brunofact, with low probability of P1 maybe).
      So Nalcor is reacting to what is so far actually poor reliability and making it up as they go......admitting GE software problems. And cannot yet get 300 MW , only half of that and mostly only 45 MW, making that sound like a lot. That is but 5% of the DC line 900 MW rating, less than our small gas turbines of 50 MW.
      Initially impressed with Paddick, first 1/2 hr and downhill from there. No idea of back up if MFs goes down . No contracts to import power. Suggesting maybe possible to import and export via the ML at the same time (cannot do at the same time), seeking sympathy for Nalcor staff, (missed his comment on naysayers, but the CA got him on that.) In house elasticity numbers exist but quiet on that. Nalcor working on mitigation but Synapse etc a thorn in their side? Didn't want to talk about Isolated options per sanction. Too much praise for Stan Marshall, yet no doubt they took over a mess.
      Not too keen of a ratepayer consumer rep be on the Board. I had considered a few years ago applying for a Nfld Hydro director,having past Nfld hydro experience and interest for wind and CDM and island hydro........... but figured a waste of time being out of step with others for mega projects. I know of another experienced engineer who was considering but didn't. As a naysayer, I would naturally be blackballed.
      Winston Adams

      Delete
    2. You are becoming a troll and will soon ignore you. I have told you several times you asked how reliable my NSP is. I responded a half hour per year. You make shit up and I am tiring of your bullshit.

      Delete
  18. I just watched the testimony of George Jergeas at the Inquiry.

    All I could think of listening to this man talk was I wish he had been consulted to at least speak to the decision makers in Government, and possibly the Nalcor board of directors before this project was even sanctioned?

    I would normally have said he probably should have presented to the managers at NALCOR itself, but as we have seen numerous times throughout this process, the management team at NALCOR weren’t prepared to listen to anybody other than themselves anyway.

    Hopefully, this guy would have been able to educate our political decision makers of exactly what we were getting into and the full implications of exactly how much risk was been taken on with this project.

    Almost every example he gave and studies he performed you could have simply taken the name off of each study and replace it with the name NALCOR and he would be dead on point.

    Something tells me that many of the points he was making will make it into Justice LeBlanc’s final report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes agree with you BF. Great presentation. Simplified it, so the average Joe could understand it, but I missed most of it. Yes, every MHA could have understood what they were getting into, and I suspect most of them would have balked at it. Yep, you put the right time and cost on it from the beginning, not say you are going to do it for six and the actual cost is twelve. No one asked about the red meat syndrome, but he probably would have you hove out of the room, you don't do that kind of stuff. Collerabation, coordination cooperation, communication, are the key action words. Respect and trust. Did he mention teamwork, maybe he did, but those who don't know how to organize usually throw that word in there and think they have solved all problems. Like having an army of men and have them gainfully employed every hour on the job and not just waiting around for materials, or the other contractor gets out of your way. Lot to be learned by just having his book Joe blow would say.

      Delete
  19. A concerted effort should be made to make one of the key players in this massive fraud,a fall guy---then wait and see each and everyone else try to protect themselves and start the ball rolling by finger pointing. Given the collusion of all players now by hiding under the cone of silence, no one is going to "rat" on the other unless someone is made an example of.
    Boy oh boy oh boy---were we ever screwed! There has never before been such a massive crime been committed on a vulnerable public.
    Danny Williams, Kathy Dunderdale, Paul Davis and most certainly Ed Martin MUST be taken to task and held accountable.----Jail time must be handed out to protect us from future sleeveens like the aforementioned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By today's expert, it seemed whatever one must do right for a successful projects, Nalcor did the opposite.
      Didn't see all he had to say, but in particular, to making decisions quick and at the site being best and most efficient. Recall Nalcor with the head office slow decisions, because he was too busy travelling over the world,he could not devote enough time to site situations, but that was the right model for management Nalcor said. The expert Sure shot to shit Nalcor's management rigid approach, and we see that those that quit and complained in writing, were right according to this expert. And besides, it's a common sense approach.
      With the Spanish conquest of America, they landed , and ordered to burn their boats so no opportunity to change plans and with a few hundred men conquered millions. Not good for the conquered, but if the conquisadors said we must get decisions from Spain first? We will send one vessel back for orders, and they should get back by next year.........
      And too Stalingrad, 1.8 million lives lost..........and ignoring field conditions and waiting for Hitler far away to direct the generals.........a German boodgoddle, so luck for the Russians,
      Maybe if moose hunting, one should phone home, to head office, to say if ok to shoot, rather than what is going on in the field, and the moose about to take off.
      Nalcor wants respect? Was it Hogan who suggested Nalcor should apologise to Nflders? But even that is a worthless gesture, with 13 billion wasted. Our suffering has not yet started from this, until the loan repayments start. But yesterday we saw several who cared little about 300 million.......what's 300 million, hey b'y?
      CBC online piece by Roberts, showed the guy laughing his head off, as if he won the lotto.
      Winston

      Delete
  20. Expert Witness, George J was great. Didn't hear everything today, maybe half, but what I did was spot on. He was also very plainspoken to leave no room for misunderstanding his meaning. The Commissioner should have heard excellent guidance on many key issues. People who missed it should watch the videos on the Inquiry website.

    ReplyDelete