Ed, if the existing CFs plant was on the open market for sale, would you or other reader state an approximate value? Even a quick off the cuff estimate, to be later qualified by the plants condition, cost of operations, average energy sales to preferred export markets, with estimates of future electricity market value?
Then the market value given for the CFs River and reservour having further potential; economic upgrades at the plant, and also of Gull Island, and including future potential of sales from Muskrat Falls plant, where the overall energy of the river is coordinated for maximum economic potential.
Obviously HQ knows this value, but does NL? Is this the commercial sensitivity that is wanted to be kept secret from our citizens , least we know the true value and would see that our province has sold out yet again, to the HQ.
HQ, who are maximising this NL resource based on their geographic location, wanting the power almost entirely for their continued economic development, and knowing politicians and citizens here are anxious for the quick buck, and much in debt from the MFs fiasco, and not seeking long term maximum benefits?
WHO CAN BLAME HQ for the original 1969 or the present similar giveaway indicated by this MOU, cheered on by our short sighted politicians, govn agencies and too many citizens here? In December, Furey handed the Quebec's Premier a remarkable Christmas gift, signed off on by Nlfd Hydro.
That there are no public protests on this deal suggest we are still "too green to burn". There was once an excuse for this when we were largely an uneducated country a century ago. This year we commemorate the 100 year of MUN, our university. Great start for the second 100 years! If I had a flag pole I would fly our Nl flag at half mast, and raise a Quebec flag. And perhaps a white one for our surrender.
Seems to me the biggest problem as with future escalation of electricity value , and as Williams' statement of the value to praise the deescalation of risk by having a basket of metrics for this. And what weight is used for those metrics? Recent info, not stated by Williams nor asked by the opposition , is what weight is applied for each metric. And it seems that 90 % is tied to the value of electricity in Quebec, which is only about 50 % of the market value of export to the US, and likely will remain at that if not lower gong forward........so CFs is, since 1969 and by this MOU, to remain a golden goose for Quebec to 2075. Furey and friends has made little attempt to make this a shared golden goose 67 % for NL and 33 % for PQ, but not just in share ownership of CFs, but its economic value, this value not just export, but going forward for more local use in Labrador for industrial, commercial and residential use, and which would be a fair deal I suggest.
Generally I think the problem with the 69 deal was that we (Newfoundland) didnt share in the future benefits. My sense is that Joey wanted the immediate benefits (jobs - and associated taxes) and could not afford to gamble on the long term benefits. Did Joey do wrong? I'm not sure. He didnt have the $ to take risks.
My current concern is about what our government should do now. If they sign a long term deal in which they get a fixed benefit, we would again be letting Quebec take all the risk and get all the benefits IF energy is more valuable in future than now.
But should we gamble or should we play it safe?
We cant know what energy will be worth in 50 years. Technology (Fusion?) may make energy much more affordable in 50 years. And that would make Hydro less valuable.
My other concern is moral. Should present governments sell future energy? Its like selling your grandchildren's property.
My preference would be a deal that see's us take more risk and get more potential benefit (and more potential loss). But I also realize that we elect people to act.
While this is the direct comparison I've done and will do again even more clearly on Wednesday, Smallwood didn't sign the 1969 deal.
The goal was to get a deal and the thing is and was profitable for its shareholders, every year. There were jobs but it was also a battery to power other developments, as much as it made money itself.
On valuation, I'll explain how they've valued the electricity and how Quebec has been able to in every crucial dimension managed to recreate the 1969 deal, right down to rigging the valuation of CF electricity. it is shocking/breath-taking/amazing.
Ed, if the existing CFs plant was on the open market for sale, would you or other reader state an approximate value? Even a quick off the cuff estimate, to be later qualified by the plants condition, cost of operations, average energy sales to preferred export markets, with estimates of future electricity market value?
Then the market value given for the CFs River and reservour having further potential; economic upgrades at the plant, and also of Gull Island, and including future potential of sales from Muskrat Falls plant, where the overall energy of the river is coordinated for maximum economic potential.
Obviously HQ knows this value, but does NL? Is this the commercial sensitivity that is wanted to be kept secret from our citizens , least we know the true value and would see that our province has sold out yet again, to the HQ.
HQ, who are maximising this NL resource based on their geographic location, wanting the power almost entirely for their continued economic development, and knowing politicians and citizens here are anxious for the quick buck, and much in debt from the MFs fiasco, and not seeking long term maximum benefits?
WHO CAN BLAME HQ for the original 1969 or the present similar giveaway indicated by this MOU, cheered on by our short sighted politicians, govn agencies and too many citizens here? In December, Furey handed the Quebec's Premier a remarkable Christmas gift, signed off on by Nlfd Hydro.
That there are no public protests on this deal suggest we are still "too green to burn". There was once an excuse for this when we were largely an uneducated country a century ago. This year we commemorate the 100 year of MUN, our university. Great start for the second 100 years! If I had a flag pole I would fly our Nl flag at half mast, and raise a Quebec flag. And perhaps a white one for our surrender.
Unless you want it now, I'll save that for a livestream
Seems to me the biggest problem as with future escalation of electricity value , and as Williams' statement of the value to praise the deescalation of risk by having a basket of metrics for this. And what weight is used for those metrics? Recent info, not stated by Williams nor asked by the opposition , is what weight is applied for each metric. And it seems that 90 % is tied to the value of electricity in Quebec, which is only about 50 % of the market value of export to the US, and likely will remain at that if not lower gong forward........so CFs is, since 1969 and by this MOU, to remain a golden goose for Quebec to 2075. Furey and friends has made little attempt to make this a shared golden goose 67 % for NL and 33 % for PQ, but not just in share ownership of CFs, but its economic value, this value not just export, but going forward for more local use in Labrador for industrial, commercial and residential use, and which would be a fair deal I suggest.
I am dealing with this on Wednesday
Generally I think the problem with the 69 deal was that we (Newfoundland) didnt share in the future benefits. My sense is that Joey wanted the immediate benefits (jobs - and associated taxes) and could not afford to gamble on the long term benefits. Did Joey do wrong? I'm not sure. He didnt have the $ to take risks.
My current concern is about what our government should do now. If they sign a long term deal in which they get a fixed benefit, we would again be letting Quebec take all the risk and get all the benefits IF energy is more valuable in future than now.
But should we gamble or should we play it safe?
We cant know what energy will be worth in 50 years. Technology (Fusion?) may make energy much more affordable in 50 years. And that would make Hydro less valuable.
My other concern is moral. Should present governments sell future energy? Its like selling your grandchildren's property.
My preference would be a deal that see's us take more risk and get more potential benefit (and more potential loss). But I also realize that we elect people to act.
While this is the direct comparison I've done and will do again even more clearly on Wednesday, Smallwood didn't sign the 1969 deal.
The goal was to get a deal and the thing is and was profitable for its shareholders, every year. There were jobs but it was also a battery to power other developments, as much as it made money itself.
On valuation, I'll explain how they've valued the electricity and how Quebec has been able to in every crucial dimension managed to recreate the 1969 deal, right down to rigging the valuation of CF electricity. it is shocking/breath-taking/amazing.
It sounds like Quebec was more skilled at writing contracts and we agreed to terms we should not have. Looking forward to more details on Wednesday.