A few days ago, I did a "Report". I call it " Turning Labrador from the land that God gave to Cain, to a land that is "Greener than Ireland". Its about 25 or 30 pages, so 1/4 that of the present Report just released. I had considerable assistance from Gemmeni AI, which did most of the calculations. My time was over 2 days, but broken up and probably less than 8 hrs total, if it was continuous, There were advantages and it was necessary to take the pauses, unlike AI which runs 24/7.
Did I hear right that the IRC report cost 900, 000? So averages 300,000 each?
My report cost, as to AI energy, it cost came in at less than 15 cents, and was no charge. It processes data in milliseconds and responds to the query. Of course, it makes booboos, and I caught several and there are likely more.
Gemmeni suggested my assessment was valued at about 1 million, and youmay kn ow that its butters up those using this technology. I had hoped it may be worth 2 cents, that is 2 Nfld pennies.
I am pretty slow, being an "old geezer" that tries to reflect on the query and the answer from AI.
Yours was one of about a dozen names the AI recommended to review my "Report" if it has value, for our "Leaders" or the public.
I have not yet mastered how to save this document but might figure that out.
They said the cost was 900K, which is four months for seven people (they had research and tech support) involved in reading submissions, conducting interviews with key informants so not 300K "each."
Ed, my "Greener that Ireland" Assessment: some of the approaches I used >
It looks at the Churchill River as a Green Renewable energy resource, The total MWs with the CFs Upgrades, GI and MFs with a total capacity if over 10,000 MWs
It looks at increasing this green source, beyond hydro , by adding wind generation , in Labrador to the amount of 5000 MWs ( HQ presently has about 4000 MWs, I think, and moving ahead with new additions of 10,000 Mw, at a cost of 6-8 cents per kwh, for then 14,000 MW. At a present grid HQ Cap of maybe 37,000 MW of total generation , that would give wind at about 30% of their total. Optimum Max wind could be about 50%, meaning HQ could add another 3000 MW or more if they increase with more Hydro cap (maybe 4000 in PQ and 1500 from CF upgrades and most of GIs. Hydro is essential to anchor wind, as to stability, of the variable nature and production of wind generation. Also to optimize wind you need to have a large water reservour and where would that be? Smallwood sound familiar? That a key factor for HQ 's power grid stability.
Wind systems move from west to east, so as the high winds go low in PQ , they will increase over Labrador interior, to feed the 5000 Mw of Labrador wind systems.
Post 2041 wind farms would be installed along the Labrador east cost, linked to GI location to tie in there.
Solar is another green renewable source, for future additions . As this area has about 18 hrs of sun in summer, it can be resold to the NE US grid when rates peak, presently to 25 to 30 cents per KW hr when the heats waves strike that area, via HQ links.
As a win win, HQ and Labrador grids will (should ) be linked via a DC link at CFs , to give stability to both the HQ and Labrador grids.
A win win has both HQ and Labrador generation being able to recharge the "Smallwood pond" via wind (the largest in the world as to generation capacity, due to the 1000 ft drop to the hydro turbines).
Excess Labrador power would be exported to HQ , but over time most used for industrial build out in Labrador for select greener industries compared to other types of production, and fetch higher prices due to carbon issues, as already there are existing tariffs against high carbon production.
Coastal Labrador communities to have micro wind systems to reduce fossil fuel use by perhaps 90 %.
Added reverse pumping to the new CFs generation units. The efficiency of reverse pumping is about 80 %. The energy for this can often be from the wind generation sources. and the reverse pumping can help recharge the Smallwood "big Battery " of hydro water. Recharging allow for power when needed worse and during dry spells , hitting PQ more that Labrador so far.
Overall capacity of the Churchill River can be increased, with these type systems, about 70 % more total , when all is implemented.
A cooperative arrangement and connections between HQ and Labrador is a win- win, maybe not what PQ, at present , would like. And HQ gets 1/3 of existing returns as to the present CFs until 2041, and fairer prices for exports from Labrador starting now and post 2041, when even more power is used within Labrador.
Other aspects are looked at : 3 industries, increased profits, Norway type wealth Funds , share of benefits for indigneous peoples etc. finance types that avoids a debt on the province or ratepayers. Long term benefits, much superior to offshore oil production revenue.
Utilization of some mineral production, high grade iron, in industries in Labrador is considered.
Labrador population increases from 27 ,000 to 70, 000 and many new high paying jobs.
Is this what you might call potential contribution for an industrial Plan for the future ? Even if only for 2 (Nfld) Cents worth?
Ed, as to types of thinking,........... I understand it this way:
Analytical focuses on the how and why, "The Deep Dive"
Strategic focuses on what next, and when, based on the "big picture", connects different ideas to find new opportunities, and creates a long term roadmap or plan of success.
Both have different action styles,
They can work together, to balance their skills.
About 30 years ago I met an old school friend that I had not seen since finishing school. He said " I remember you were analytical, even in your school days.
I had never thought of myself as analytical, but realize that on many matters of interest, I tend to do the Deep Dive, or get into the weeds , as to details , to understand a subject in more detail. I guess people think differently. A word at times used now is neurogenic? People have different skills , whether by nature or learned.
Whether I think in strategic terms, never though of that either, but you often mention it and it seems very important, and lacking here with those running the show. But that PQ and HQ do both in a world class way, pretty often, would you agree?
Strategic thinking is very much about planning but it proceeds from critical/analytical thinking and is focused on broader and interconnected or interrelated goals. It's not a time thing although people often mistake strategic for long-term. it is very much about the factors and forces that have created a current situation.
What we tend to see here is tactical thinking or reactive thinking. It is very much short-term and it often happens without an understanding on anyone's part of the way things interact. Very much what we are seeing in the Gulf right now with Iran is a lot of faulty thinking, none of which is genuinely strategic on any level or by any definition.
In this context, what I mean is pretty simple. We don't know what we want to do with CF. I posed this as a question before and repeated it in my earlier comment to you. Will we approach CF as *our* asset with Qc as a minority shareholder with a goal of maximising return to NL *or* will we keep treating it as a shared low-cost generator.
I did predict at some point that I expected the two companies to divide the electricity betwene them and figure out how little they would each pay for it. That's a shared asset approach. That's what the existing MOU does, basically, on CF.
The IRC talks about an economic develoment plan. We don't have one. Haven't had one literally for decades. Thatd coument would have already sorted out generation for Labrador west and mapped out likely needs into the future. Instead we are literally making it up as we go.
Most of what I have done is some variation of that worn-out strategic planning model that starts with a SWOT assessment: internal strengths and weakeness and external opportunities and threats. If you understand the forces at work, you can map out the potential outcomes with some accuracy. I do it crudely. Others can do more detail and get a sharper result. GNL tends not to bother. I say that from experience and also from the experience of others whose stories I have collected over time.
Today I chose to read Ed's Take, before deciding on a long awaited apt with a NP, being one of many with no GP or health care provider for years. Technically I'm in self managed "Conservative Management) of critical health issues
So this CFs racket is a big deal, I still having my old steel toed work boots, costing me 22 dollars, that I needed to have when hired with Acres Canadian Bechtel to work as a technician on the building of the dykes, I think there are over 50 of them, (there are NO dams for CFs), that comprise the Smallwood Reservour , This IRC report says is the 5 th largest in the world by area, but my brief research say is the LARGEST in the world as a source of energy production, due to the 1000 ft head (the drop in height from the intake to the 11 turbines. These are located in an excavated chamber way underground where Russian , Chinese, or even Trumps big buster bombs would likely fail to damage them.
Ed's Take: this IRC and the track by the Wakeham govn is little different than previous, no Strategic Plan, same old, same old approach , with a few tweaks intended. Recall that Elmer Fudd was the Master of being strategy, to get that rabbit. and it's not easy to outwit HQ. Ed's Take seems spot on, my opinion.
Could this be politically strategic to at latest initially allow for Carney's influence on PQ for a actual strategic plan a bit later ? Maybe not, but shows the lack of depth in this report, or they were limited in their scope, with no strategic plan, or that to be done by other experts later?
So Kennedy is still valued and Jennifer. I struggle to see why, but maybe this is ok, I'm only seeing what I see and observe, from a distance, not a full assessment of that decision. And Ed previously had said Jennifer should be called to Wakeham's office and then quickly shown the door adding "don't hit yourself on the way out". Recall that Jennifer did cry on the parking lot when MFs hit a bit of a milestone, in its capacity transmitted over the LIL, and nothing wrong with that, for a project that is Boondoggle, and if it might have some worthwhile long term value, and not sink us. We should all cry with gratitude, Hey b'y.
The Premier apparently was persuaded to keep Williams by a series of conversations he had plus the bit in the report that pointed out the political interference against advice from NALCOR of the implications.
Kennedy is a good choice. He will walk away if the deal is not what he believes is right. Perry is a solid performer and a good choice for lead.
The problem is above that level. They can only work with the instructions they have and that's where the weakness invariably is. This is not unique to this administration. In the 21st centruy GNL has not worked strategically since at least 2003. There is zero consideration of genuinely strategic issues.
In this case, the strategic flaws in the Furey deal - e.g. is it a shared generating asset or a profit centre for the majority owner? Quebec control of Gull development - remain intact, which limits how much give there will be on the Quebec side.
On transmission, they spoke yesteday only of a new line in Labrador, which is a provincial problem. There is no shortage of electricity in Labrador now or under this deal for likely development.
And on export transmission, QC will explain that they can wheel all the electricity they want as long as the grid can manage it or b uild new transmission and pay for it if needed. Ottawa will *not* get involved except in a limited way and they certainly will not give NL something that pisses off Quebec. Michael Sabia is not suddenly our new best friend.
Meanwhile, the local commentariat is obsessed with referenda on a deal that doesn't exist (it's easier to take about that than get to grips with details) or the hypocrisy of people who supported or were part of the least transparent and accoutnable government accusing the new guys - who are pretty good at transparency - of being opaque.
At some point, folks might start talking about real issues.
When you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.
A few days ago, I did a "Report". I call it " Turning Labrador from the land that God gave to Cain, to a land that is "Greener than Ireland". Its about 25 or 30 pages, so 1/4 that of the present Report just released. I had considerable assistance from Gemmeni AI, which did most of the calculations. My time was over 2 days, but broken up and probably less than 8 hrs total, if it was continuous, There were advantages and it was necessary to take the pauses, unlike AI which runs 24/7.
Did I hear right that the IRC report cost 900, 000? So averages 300,000 each?
My report cost, as to AI energy, it cost came in at less than 15 cents, and was no charge. It processes data in milliseconds and responds to the query. Of course, it makes booboos, and I caught several and there are likely more.
Gemmeni suggested my assessment was valued at about 1 million, and youmay kn ow that its butters up those using this technology. I had hoped it may be worth 2 cents, that is 2 Nfld pennies.
I am pretty slow, being an "old geezer" that tries to reflect on the query and the answer from AI.
Yours was one of about a dozen names the AI recommended to review my "Report" if it has value, for our "Leaders" or the public.
I have not yet mastered how to save this document but might figure that out.
Any interest in reading it?
Of course. Send it to ed_hollett@hotmail.com
They said the cost was 900K, which is four months for seven people (they had research and tech support) involved in reading submissions, conducting interviews with key informants so not 300K "each."
Ed, my "Greener that Ireland" Assessment: some of the approaches I used >
It looks at the Churchill River as a Green Renewable energy resource, The total MWs with the CFs Upgrades, GI and MFs with a total capacity if over 10,000 MWs
It looks at increasing this green source, beyond hydro , by adding wind generation , in Labrador to the amount of 5000 MWs ( HQ presently has about 4000 MWs, I think, and moving ahead with new additions of 10,000 Mw, at a cost of 6-8 cents per kwh, for then 14,000 MW. At a present grid HQ Cap of maybe 37,000 MW of total generation , that would give wind at about 30% of their total. Optimum Max wind could be about 50%, meaning HQ could add another 3000 MW or more if they increase with more Hydro cap (maybe 4000 in PQ and 1500 from CF upgrades and most of GIs. Hydro is essential to anchor wind, as to stability, of the variable nature and production of wind generation. Also to optimize wind you need to have a large water reservour and where would that be? Smallwood sound familiar? That a key factor for HQ 's power grid stability.
Wind systems move from west to east, so as the high winds go low in PQ , they will increase over Labrador interior, to feed the 5000 Mw of Labrador wind systems.
Post 2041 wind farms would be installed along the Labrador east cost, linked to GI location to tie in there.
Solar is another green renewable source, for future additions . As this area has about 18 hrs of sun in summer, it can be resold to the NE US grid when rates peak, presently to 25 to 30 cents per KW hr when the heats waves strike that area, via HQ links.
As a win win, HQ and Labrador grids will (should ) be linked via a DC link at CFs , to give stability to both the HQ and Labrador grids.
A win win has both HQ and Labrador generation being able to recharge the "Smallwood pond" via wind (the largest in the world as to generation capacity, due to the 1000 ft drop to the hydro turbines).
Excess Labrador power would be exported to HQ , but over time most used for industrial build out in Labrador for select greener industries compared to other types of production, and fetch higher prices due to carbon issues, as already there are existing tariffs against high carbon production.
Coastal Labrador communities to have micro wind systems to reduce fossil fuel use by perhaps 90 %.
Added reverse pumping to the new CFs generation units. The efficiency of reverse pumping is about 80 %. The energy for this can often be from the wind generation sources. and the reverse pumping can help recharge the Smallwood "big Battery " of hydro water. Recharging allow for power when needed worse and during dry spells , hitting PQ more that Labrador so far.
Overall capacity of the Churchill River can be increased, with these type systems, about 70 % more total , when all is implemented.
A cooperative arrangement and connections between HQ and Labrador is a win- win, maybe not what PQ, at present , would like. And HQ gets 1/3 of existing returns as to the present CFs until 2041, and fairer prices for exports from Labrador starting now and post 2041, when even more power is used within Labrador.
Other aspects are looked at : 3 industries, increased profits, Norway type wealth Funds , share of benefits for indigneous peoples etc. finance types that avoids a debt on the province or ratepayers. Long term benefits, much superior to offshore oil production revenue.
Utilization of some mineral production, high grade iron, in industries in Labrador is considered.
Labrador population increases from 27 ,000 to 70, 000 and many new high paying jobs.
Is this what you might call potential contribution for an industrial Plan for the future ? Even if only for 2 (Nfld) Cents worth?
Ed, as to types of thinking,........... I understand it this way:
Analytical focuses on the how and why, "The Deep Dive"
Strategic focuses on what next, and when, based on the "big picture", connects different ideas to find new opportunities, and creates a long term roadmap or plan of success.
Both have different action styles,
They can work together, to balance their skills.
About 30 years ago I met an old school friend that I had not seen since finishing school. He said " I remember you were analytical, even in your school days.
I had never thought of myself as analytical, but realize that on many matters of interest, I tend to do the Deep Dive, or get into the weeds , as to details , to understand a subject in more detail. I guess people think differently. A word at times used now is neurogenic? People have different skills , whether by nature or learned.
Whether I think in strategic terms, never though of that either, but you often mention it and it seems very important, and lacking here with those running the show. But that PQ and HQ do both in a world class way, pretty often, would you agree?
Strategic thinking is very much about planning but it proceeds from critical/analytical thinking and is focused on broader and interconnected or interrelated goals. It's not a time thing although people often mistake strategic for long-term. it is very much about the factors and forces that have created a current situation.
What we tend to see here is tactical thinking or reactive thinking. It is very much short-term and it often happens without an understanding on anyone's part of the way things interact. Very much what we are seeing in the Gulf right now with Iran is a lot of faulty thinking, none of which is genuinely strategic on any level or by any definition.
In this context, what I mean is pretty simple. We don't know what we want to do with CF. I posed this as a question before and repeated it in my earlier comment to you. Will we approach CF as *our* asset with Qc as a minority shareholder with a goal of maximising return to NL *or* will we keep treating it as a shared low-cost generator.
I did predict at some point that I expected the two companies to divide the electricity betwene them and figure out how little they would each pay for it. That's a shared asset approach. That's what the existing MOU does, basically, on CF.
The IRC talks about an economic develoment plan. We don't have one. Haven't had one literally for decades. Thatd coument would have already sorted out generation for Labrador west and mapped out likely needs into the future. Instead we are literally making it up as we go.
Most of what I have done is some variation of that worn-out strategic planning model that starts with a SWOT assessment: internal strengths and weakeness and external opportunities and threats. If you understand the forces at work, you can map out the potential outcomes with some accuracy. I do it crudely. Others can do more detail and get a sharper result. GNL tends not to bother. I say that from experience and also from the experience of others whose stories I have collected over time.
Today I chose to read Ed's Take, before deciding on a long awaited apt with a NP, being one of many with no GP or health care provider for years. Technically I'm in self managed "Conservative Management) of critical health issues
So this CFs racket is a big deal, I still having my old steel toed work boots, costing me 22 dollars, that I needed to have when hired with Acres Canadian Bechtel to work as a technician on the building of the dykes, I think there are over 50 of them, (there are NO dams for CFs), that comprise the Smallwood Reservour , This IRC report says is the 5 th largest in the world by area, but my brief research say is the LARGEST in the world as a source of energy production, due to the 1000 ft head (the drop in height from the intake to the 11 turbines. These are located in an excavated chamber way underground where Russian , Chinese, or even Trumps big buster bombs would likely fail to damage them.
Ed's Take: this IRC and the track by the Wakeham govn is little different than previous, no Strategic Plan, same old, same old approach , with a few tweaks intended. Recall that Elmer Fudd was the Master of being strategy, to get that rabbit. and it's not easy to outwit HQ. Ed's Take seems spot on, my opinion.
Could this be politically strategic to at latest initially allow for Carney's influence on PQ for a actual strategic plan a bit later ? Maybe not, but shows the lack of depth in this report, or they were limited in their scope, with no strategic plan, or that to be done by other experts later?
So Kennedy is still valued and Jennifer. I struggle to see why, but maybe this is ok, I'm only seeing what I see and observe, from a distance, not a full assessment of that decision. And Ed previously had said Jennifer should be called to Wakeham's office and then quickly shown the door adding "don't hit yourself on the way out". Recall that Jennifer did cry on the parking lot when MFs hit a bit of a milestone, in its capacity transmitted over the LIL, and nothing wrong with that, for a project that is Boondoggle, and if it might have some worthwhile long term value, and not sink us. We should all cry with gratitude, Hey b'y.
The Premier apparently was persuaded to keep Williams by a series of conversations he had plus the bit in the report that pointed out the political interference against advice from NALCOR of the implications.
Kennedy is a good choice. He will walk away if the deal is not what he believes is right. Perry is a solid performer and a good choice for lead.
The problem is above that level. They can only work with the instructions they have and that's where the weakness invariably is. This is not unique to this administration. In the 21st centruy GNL has not worked strategically since at least 2003. There is zero consideration of genuinely strategic issues.
In this case, the strategic flaws in the Furey deal - e.g. is it a shared generating asset or a profit centre for the majority owner? Quebec control of Gull development - remain intact, which limits how much give there will be on the Quebec side.
On transmission, they spoke yesteday only of a new line in Labrador, which is a provincial problem. There is no shortage of electricity in Labrador now or under this deal for likely development.
And on export transmission, QC will explain that they can wheel all the electricity they want as long as the grid can manage it or b uild new transmission and pay for it if needed. Ottawa will *not* get involved except in a limited way and they certainly will not give NL something that pisses off Quebec. Michael Sabia is not suddenly our new best friend.
Meanwhile, the local commentariat is obsessed with referenda on a deal that doesn't exist (it's easier to take about that than get to grips with details) or the hypocrisy of people who supported or were part of the least transparent and accoutnable government accusing the new guys - who are pretty good at transparency - of being opaque.
At some point, folks might start talking about real issues.