Thursday, October 4, 2012


"I think the time is right to take advantage of the potential of taking Holyrood off the grid.

I also think that we need to look at all options that moves the obstructionist Quebec away from controlling our energy future. 

I also think that taking on debt to build this project is not a huge concern as transferring funds gained from non-renewable resources to a renewable industry makes sense.

That said the project has to make financial sense in the long term."

March 10, 2011


Anonymous said...

Transferring finds from non-renewable to renewable industry makes sense? Exactly what renewable "industry" are your referring to? Make work construction projects? Mines (of non-renewable resources) in Labrador?

If you're referring to a renewable energy supply, that's a hell of a price tag to get rid of Holyrood, there certainly isn't any export market that would allow the government to recover the cost to produce the power.

Industry could avail of cheap energy in this province for decades. We got a few paper mills and some fly by nights that stuck around until the government funding ran out. More of the same certainly isn't going to work.

Please explain your rationale, I'm genuinely curious.

Peter L. Whittle said...

I believe that we have to look at the costs but taking resource rents from non-renewable sources like oil revenues and applying it to the development of the lower churchill (I would prefer it was the entire project) which has the potential to create revenue on a renewable basis makes sense. How can you be so closed minded in your statement about construction projects. The construction jobs are short term benefits. The long term revenue generation will be here long after the oil is gone, long after ore at existing operations is gone. That power will help develop other mines.

If this was purely about getting rid of Holyrood, I might agree but it is not. That is an added bonus. The environmental (not withstanding the damage to the river) impacts overall will mitigate similar facilities in Nova Scotia as well, helping to limit green house gas emissions.

Sorry, but I think investing in renewable income to fuel and support the future economy makes sense.

Anonymous said...


Common sense, logic and a discussion of the issues is a waste of effort with those that are galvanized in their divisive entrenched positions.

Anonymous said...

Peter, anon from 8:25 here.
No need to apologize for disagreement, we all have our views and discussing our differences leads to broader understanding.
My career has been spent in the private sector, which has imparted a profit oriented perspective on how I evaluate prospective ventures. I'm practiced in developing thorough and complete business cases evaluating both tangible and intangible benefits and assigning a monetary value to the inputs. My study of Muskrat Falls have thus far concluded that it is not the best, or even a wise investment of our finite resources. I don't agree with your assessment of this projects value of revenue generation through spending. The return on investment is too long, subject to high variability and risk, and has no compelling visible upside. If I were a steward of the public treasury, I would not invest our money with a view to realizing a profit either directly or via intangible returns.
I believe that there are better paths that would achieve the same means, with ancillary benefits. The electrical challenge is a relatively short term one. In 2041, we'll have access to enough power to meet any foreseeable needs as well as export profitably should we choose to do so.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate you creating and using this venue to forward the discussion.