Thursday, 30 November 2017

TERRIFYING CONCLUSION FOLLOWS RELEASE OF NEW BERNANDER REPORT ON NORTH SPUR

Guest Post By PlanetNL

PlanetNL6: Latest Bernander Report on North Spur Leads to Terrifying Conclusion

If there is one topic in the whole of Muskrat that is truly clear as mud, it’s the North Spur. Equally murky is Nalcor’s plan to use this natural formation across the Churchill River as the largest dam holding back the reservoir.  
PlanetNL’s agenda has deliberately left this challenging topic to others, choosing instead to concentrate primarily on the financial disaster that awaits the people of this Province upon Muskrat completion in 2021.  The others who have written on the North Spur are better researched on the subject and have written passionately about the North Spur on this blog and elsewhere.  
PlanetNL would not write about the North Spur now except that a new report issued by Dr. Stig Bernander clearly implies that a different disaster appears imminent and will be realized before project completion.  It’s no longer necessary to guess if, when or how the North Spur may fail.  Dr. Bernander has presented us with the necessary failure analysis and Nalcor is scheduled to meet the conditions required no later than November 2019.
It would be hard to argue that anyone could exceed Dr Stig Bernander of Sweden as the foremost engineering authority on the behaviour of the glaciomarine clays that underlie the North Spur.  Leading Muskrat critic, Cabot Martin, in his persistent quest to learn more about these materials and the landslides they create, met Dr. Bernander in 2013 at a conference in Quebec.  Thanks to the huge efforts of Cabot Martin and the Uncle Gnarley blog, the public has received several papers prepared by Dr. Bernander critiquing Nalcor’s approach to stabilizing the soils of the North Spur.
From "North Spur Landslide and Instability Problem" Presentation by Cabot Martin March, 2013
Having read the prior reports and information these last few years, many of us may have thought the North Spur could possibly fail - or maybe it wouldn’t.  Perhaps it could be a random event many years down the road.  Perhaps it could be triggered by an upslope landslide from the suspect land to the North.  Another scenario is an upstream slide triggered by raised river levels setting off a large wave that may have a terrible impact on the North Spur dam.  Or perhaps the Spur dam might be plagued by relatively slow leaks and that actions to fix them, costly though they may be, could be taken to mitigate them.
Dr. Bernander’s latest report, however, yields a moment of clarity.  The paper entitled “Summing Up of North Spur Stability Issues”, issued November 26, 2017, is a challenging read.  It is not meant to stand alone but it references other Bernander reports and it also directly addresses deficiencies in Nalcor reports.  The referencing of other documents and the inherently highly technical language make it a tough read even for engineers with some familiarity of geotechnical issues.  It therefore took a few readings before it became clear what Dr. Bernander’s latest report was indicating. 
It is a necessary convenience to readers, that the following section is presented to summarize in relatively simple language the key technical points of the report – this interpretation is believed to be faithful to Dr. Bernander’s assessment of the North Spur.
A Summary Interpretation of the November 2017 Bernander Report
Of primary concern is that project engineering reports by Nalcor and their Consultants did not include a precise soil structure model and they did not use soils data representative of the Churchill River Valley. Instead, their models were based upon different formations found in Eastern Canada with which the Project Engineers were familiar. 
The key issue at variance is that Dr. Bernander finds that the glaciomarine clays of the North Spur are virtually identical to those he is very familiar with in Northern Europe and they exhibit properties much weaker than those used in the Nalcor basis of design.  First is that the glaciomarine clays are especially saturation sensitive and second is that under high strain, even absent excess moisture, the clay material can suddenly and dramatically lose its strength or resistance to loading.
Dr. Stig Bernander
To reduce saturation, a common engineering solution for the Eastern Canadian soils and applied at Muskrat has been to install a water penetration barrier known as a cut-off wall to limit water seepage and behind it install a number of deep pumped wells behind to limit saturation below critical levels.  The Nalcor design for the stronger soil model therefore utilizes far fewer pumped wells at much wider spacing than would be dictated by a model using weaker clay characteristics.  
The weak clay will have several times less than the minimum shear strength required to withstand the heavy load of the full reservoir.  The deflection and compression of the North Spur, as the immense weight of water grows upon it, will introduce substantial shear strain.  At a certain strain level, these weak clays don’t just deform, they turn into a liquid.  Bernander calculates that full reservoir impoundment at the normal operating level of +39m above sea level (36m higher than the downstream level) will surpass the strain limit by a factor of 3.  The point of onset of soil failure (factor of 1) is calculated to occur at a reservoir level of +32m.
Source: Cabot Martin Presentation March 2013 
Also to be considered is the impact of dynamic movement as soils settle and shift under pressure.  The Project Engineers relied on a modelling type that does not capture dynamic strain effects that can transform the clay into a liquid.  Despite the slow filling of the reservoir, the natural varied soil type and layers within the Spur will react differently to the rising pressure.  Many sudden compressive movements and deflection should be expected within the North Spur as it is not a homogenous engineered structure.  These dynamic jolts are likely to be sufficient triggering events to cause soil liquefaction in localized areas.  The concern of inadequate water removal will lower the strain capacity of the sensitive clay. 
Related to this Post: 
muskratinfo.ca   A Web Site hosted by Cabot Martin featuring several Presentations on the                                    "Quick Clay stability problem at the North Spur, Muskrat Falls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q-qfNlEP4A   The Rissa Landslide - Quick Clay in                                                                                                         Norway (Editors's Note: this is a must                                                                                                   view.)
In addition to weak soil types is the importance of the orientation of the layers of these soils which run broadly across the North Spur while sloping downward from the upstream side toward the downstream side.  A localized failure zone, as predicted in the paragraph above, will rapidly propagate throughout an entire material layer.  Gravity will be more than sufficient to allow masses of material to move along the downward slope.
Source: Cabot Martin Presentation March, 2013
The report concludes that the Nalcor engineering approach is critically deficient and must be revisited using the proper modelling technique and revised with more accurate soil characteristics. 
Additional Interpretation by Jim Gordon
The root issue of the Bernander critique is in quantifying the characteristics of the soils of the North Spur.  To his credit, Bernander has visited the site and has studied the numerous Nalcor reports and data.  He finds the materials to be categorically the same as the glaciomarine clays he has worked with and studied extensively in Northern Europe: materials whose properties he thoroughly understands.  Nalcor on the other hand has defended its engineers who have chosen to classify it as the same type of material they are familiar with in Eastern Canada and of which they assume considerably higher strength.
In seeking comment on a draft of the above report summary, retired engineer Jim Gordon, among the most experienced hydro dam engineers in Canada, and author of several posts on the North Spur on this blog, was asked to review and comment. He came back with these insightful comments: 
“Nalcor used partial soil characteristics based on the local geotechnical data. However, they did not undertake sufficient tests to determine the soil characteristics under load. In other words, the stress-strain tests were not undertaken, and instead, stress-strain data from other similar soils was used to obtain (assume) a linear relationship.
This is the principal error found by Bernander. However, Bernander also assumed soil characteristics based on his experience with similar Swedish sensitive clays, which indicate a non-linear relationship at high strain (deformation) levels, with a large reduction in strength from that based on a linear relationship, hence failure.
Stress-strain tests are essential to determine who is correct, and my opinion is that Bernander is correct.”
Site of massive February 2010 landslide located upstream from Muskrat Falls caused by liquefaction of glaciomarine clays (also known as "Quick Clay") 
Source: Cabot Martin Presentation March, 2013

Dare We Conjecture the Collapse Scenario?
If Bernander’s view is correct that Nalcor’s design approach has substantially overestimated the strength of the glaciomarine clays, then Nalcor is steadily marching toward a disaster of catastrophic proportions.  It will happen in late 2019 as Nalcor raises the reservoir toward its maximum design level of +39m.  Filling likely begins slowly throughout the summer and fall, intended to be complete before the river freezes over.
While Bernander states a reservoir level of +32m could exceed the capacity of the sensitive glaciomarine clays, the dynamic effects could trigger a major landslide at a slightly lower level.  Alternately, if the clays are somewhat stronger than Bernander assumes, the failure could happen at a higher elevation, serving to release an even greater amount of water. 
The failure of the North Spur would be dramatic and rapid.  The layering of soils tilted toward the downstream side would fail on a very broad front, presumably beginning at the downstream side but rapidly progressing its way up the downstream slope.  At some point the landslide will be met by the positive force of the reservoir water breaking through the weakened dam.  The onrush of water would carve its way not only widely through the Spur, but it would deeply gouge out the soft soils of the Spur. The post-failure upstream river level would likely drop by 14 m to meet the downstream level.
The potential 14m drop would have a devastating effect on the River for many kilometers upstream.  The substantial lowering of the river would increase water velocity, eroding the river bottom.   Numerous landslides of freshly exposed riverbanks, made of the same soft and sensitive soils, would add to the mass of silt sent downstream and into Lake Melville.
The sudden release of water downstream of the dam would quickly scour the riverbanks and overflow all low-lying areas.  Potential damage to inhabited areas could be difficult to predict in its entirety as the massive amount of soils and debris carried in the water could create overland flooding in areas not immediately anticipated.
Who Can Intervene?
At this point in time, after being challenged on this issue for many years, it is illogical to expect Nalcor to change its position – they deny any error on the soils.  The same can be said of the Provincial Government which, despite a change of Party, appears joined to Nalcor’s hip.  The remaining formal body with a large stake at risk is the Federal Government which has remained incredibly silent but evidently supportive of the Muskrat project.  The immense and foreseeable disaster of dam failure at Muskrat in the weeks before a 2019 Federal election could be fatal to the current Government.  It is in their interest to order a thorough review of the geotechnical design of the North Spur and to begin controlling their political as well as capital risk. 
Failing that, the people of Central Labrador have been warned to prepare for the worst.  Or they can cling to the hope Bernander is wrong and Nalcor is right.
________________________________________
Editors Note:
The text of Dr. Stig Bernander's Report will be posted on Monday.

73 comments:

  1. PEGNL... where are you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Latched onto Nalcor's arse.

      From VOCM News, November 29, 2010 - Seven years ago.



      Engineers, Town Applaud Muskrat Falls Deal
       
      The Professional Engineers Association (PEGNL) says they will do their part to help bring the Lower Churchill deal to fruition. The group says they are ready to work with Nalcor and Emera to make sure
      everything runs smoothly. CEO Geoff Emberley says the success of the project is dependant on their ability to plan, design construct, operate and maintain the transmission facilities. The group believes this project and future energy developments can bring significant benefits to the province in providing clean and economic electrical energy.

      Delete
  2. To quote Goethe, "Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action". The Muskrat project management team are such an example.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This gets more terrifying by the day. The denial by Nalcor that they used the wrong soil characteristics cannot stand when so much is at stake.

    If you had a functioning Opposition they would be hounding the government daily. PENG2 ignores these facts as do all the amoral professionals that will hide when the spur fails,

    For Christ sake someone has to break through the denial and get action on the spur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bruno:

      You are misquoting me again---I have only ever said that it is in the best interest of the province to complete as to avoid default.

      Calling me amoral, ignorant of the facts etc is not productive, nor reflective of any of my postings.

      PENG2

      Delete
    2. The government hardly functions as a whole, let alone one side of it.

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

      Delete
    4. Damned right I am calling you amoral. Is it in the best interest of the persons downstream to complete a dam that will rupture if one believes the independent and appropriate analysis? Is this in NL's best interest? Is it moral to make bizarre, unfounded, self serving claims that it is in the best interest of NL to complete and abandon without concern for the technical and economic fraud imposed on a population denied regulatory protection?

      If you cannot answer the question of the morality of the threat to life downstream your point is moot. The only relevant default is de fault in dat marine clay.

      How long will stay attached to Nalcor's arse (as they say)? Not until hell and high water I hope!

      Delete
    5. Bruno:

      I answered this already---I advocate complete to avoid default and nothing else. this simple economics are:
      1) $8B spent
      2) $2B committed
      3) assume $1.8B remediation if we abandon (directly from Vardy's statement to BC regarding site C)
      4) add-in costs to cancel contracts
      5) add-in default costs
      6) add-in misc remediation costs

      Not sure where you did math but those 5 items add up to more than the projected current costs of completion---and for the umptinth time, I only advocate complete to avoid default, I have never said nothing about operation, nor have I ever advocated taking on any risk of life or infrastructure.

      If we default the people of NL owe on the order of $12B plus other cancelation costs for nothing and the Feds/NS get the work completed to date(as per the FLG), if we complete at least we still have something we can analyze if it can be utilized.

      As it stands now, there is nothing in the completion of construction that will affect the stability of the Spur---you need to realize what is at stake here.

      PENG2

      Delete
  4. My summary thoughts on Dr. Bernander's most recent report were that:

    "... (it) affirms that the resultant safety factors that Nalcor has assigned to the North Spur are not supported by appropriate/sufficient geotechnical investigations and the analytical methods relied on by Nalcor are not best suited to the North Spur (i.e., soil, pressure and slope conditions that are vulnerable to progressive or retrogressive failure).

    Accordingly, safety of the North Spur has not been demonstrated."

    And as far back as January, 2016 (The Telegram) I wrote, in part, that:

    "...once the Muskrat Falls dams are built and the reservoir is filled to its planned 39 metre elevation, the horizontal water pressure at the 18 metre mark will increase according to the square of the increased depth of the water.

    That will increase horizontal water infiltration pressure at the 18 metre mark from zero to nearly one half million pounds per metre along the length of the North Spur and the upstream north bank (and approaching almost one million pounds per metre when the reservoir reaches a maximum flood level of 45 metres)."

    Clearly, an appropriate, expert (comprehensive) geotechnical review is required.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Mud Lake Flood Report, while defending Nalcor, it had some important data that cause concern.
      While operating elevation is to be 39 m, under spring flood conditions, it indicated the elevation may rise to 44 m. Present level upstream of the Spur was raised from 17 m to 21.5 m last Fall, about 15 ft, and will go to 39m, a 72 ft rise, with possable rise in the spring to 44 m, an 89 ft rise. But to the down stream of the Spur, the river elevation is well over 100 ft difference from the upstream operating level , is it not?
      If this failure is in winter, there is the mass of ice downstream impeding flow and upstream being released and likely to cause massive overland flooding downstream , at Happy valley Goose Bay.
      I speculate a wall of water and ice some 50 ft high.....but experts in this field should be able to evaluate this based on the land contour and the ice volume. Upstream would be an area of ice the size of Bell Island, some 27 sq miles.
      This post suggest a failure would gorge out the base of the spur for a 14 m (46 Ft ) elevation difference to meet the downstream elevation........but would it not be much more than that?
      WA

      Delete
    2. Maurice/WA:

      Something I have not heard anyone mention is 3 components:
      1) after inpounding, what will the ice conditions on the outlet side resemble---pressure ridges etc
      2) what type of breach(the type of breach is key here---catastrophic or 'manageable') as the effecet is drastically different
      3) how will the downstream ice conditions and the realigned river bed react---when the bridge was put in about 10yrs ago there are a number of shoals that have since developed and others that have moved/vanished

      Just food for thought...

      PENG2

      Delete
    3. One would think all of these question would have been considered by experts and made known to local residents, and all ratepayers. long before now, and before sanction. Catastrophic has been suggested by Cabot Martin and with Gordon and Dr B, and others, but the worse result, in damage and loss of life, I feel has not been assessed by experts to my knowledge, but I heard of 60 million in damage estimated, but this may be a manageable breach? But , yes, all components you mention has little discussion. Guess the Inquiry will sort this out too?
      WA

      Delete
  5. Anyone downstream must be relocated to safety when they fill the reservoir. Hopefully it will fail immediately or better yet, not be filled at all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A looming catastrophe on the horizon for sure. It boggles the mind how those responsible for a project of this magnitude that has the potential to financially ruin the province to ignore points of view from professionals in their field. But, as usual, dare we question nalcor (the real jewel in the crown). Just saying, the re-settlement issue raising its ugly head as of late again. Bet there'd be no objections to nalcor re-locating to the north spur area, keep a close eye on things aye. Okay okay I know, that's like spending good money after bad but I think in this case it makes sense. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  7. PlanetNL today summarizes the latest report from geo-technical expert Dr. Stig Bernander, which concludes that Nalcor’s design approach has substantially overestimated the strength of glaciomarine clays at Muskrat Falls and that Nalcor is steadily marching toward a disaster of catastrophic proportions. It will happen in late 2019 as Nalcor raises the reservoir toward its maximum design level of +39m. Filling likely begins slowly throughout the summer and fall, intended to be complete before the river freezes over.

    Just last night Labrador Land Protectors met with Stan Marshall the Nalcor CEO, who said that he is confident the North Spur is safe. PlanetNL, in commenting on these remarks by Marshall wrote the following postscript:

    Following submission of this post, a Sharing Circle event hosted by the Labrador Land Protectors was held in the evening of November 29, 2017. At this event, available for replay on the LLP Facebook page, Nalcor CEO Stan Marshall firmly insisted there would be no risk of North Spur collapse as the monitoring systems in the wells would indicate excess water infiltration and allow steps to be taken to repair the issue or in the worst case to reduce the reservoir level. Mr. Marshall cites that these best practices are applicable to any reservoir dam and it would eliminate the risk of collapse entirely. In making these comments, it is apparent that the CEO refutes that the clays of the North Spur possess the high sensitivity characteristics as stated by Dr. Bernander. Further it can be understood that the Nalcor detection system would not detect faults at the low thresholds that trigger the sensitive clays to liquefy and even if they could provide such a warning, these clay types would most likely propagate a massive landslide before there is any opportunity for the system operator to react, If Nalcor is wrong on the clay type, there are no suitable mechanisms in place to reduce the risk of sudden collapse. Only one thing is certain: the geotechnical study and design will not be up for review on Mr. Marshall's watch.

    Bernander’s research confirms that Nalcor is indeed wrong on the type of clay.
    David Vardy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again your analysis is helpful and insightful David. Your conclusion " the geotechnical study and design will not be up for review on Mr. Marshall's watch." is correct. We have alternative realities do we not? Stan, Nalcor and their servants, the provincial government, refuse to look at the evidence. This follows a well worn pattern of wilful blindness also demonstrated by the PUB in refusing to accept reliability analysis into the record.

      The rot runs deep throughout NL politics. The question is what does anyone plan to do about it? Being prescient about the decay and deadly collapse is not enough David. What the hell will you do about it? Who will demand Ball deal with the geotechnical reality at MF before it is too late?

      Delete
  8. This piece says Nalcor's engineering approach is critically deficient as to modeling techniques and more accurate soil characteristics:
    That it appears that Bernander findings results from using clays from the N Spur, whereas some of Nalcor's analysis uses Eastern Canada marine data clay for analysis.
    That the project engineers did not capture dynamic strain effect.
    That Jim Gordon says Nalcor used only partial soil characteristics on local N Spur geotechnical data, but that Bernander also ASSUMED soil characteristics bases on his experience with similar Swedish clays.
    Gordons comment is a little confusing, as I gather that Bernander assesses N spur soil, that it is very similar to Swedish clays, and therefore his analysis seems valid for the N spur, so there is little assumption factor compared to Nalcor.
    Gordon agrees with Bernander, but can this be further clarified?
    WA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WA:

      The missing component of all this is a matrix of shear box, triaxial tests and most probably centrifuge tests. Also, I understand the software used to do the analysis is part of the GeoStuidio suite--weak at this type analysis in my experience.

      I have limited experience with European clays, and mostly SE Asian clays at that---but their behavior can vary, as can NA clays. I would suggest Nalcor has presented the best case possible and Dr B the worse case---which scenario is most likely requires a deeper analysis for sure.

      I have some data from reviewing work the area early in my career, but only a small data set and not enough to establish certainty; I am not sure such a comprehensive data set exists.

      PENG2

      Delete
    2. PENG2, when you say Nalcor used the best case possable, I assume you mean for that for Nalcor, there is bias for the best outcome that all will be fine, so full steam ahead. CBC today quoted Stan Marshall who participated in a sharing circle with Land protectors in Goose Bay yesterday, that "there will not be a sudden catastrophic failure. There will not be" Is he certain the design is safe, or that it may never be put in operation and tested? He is but a chemical engineer, so trusts his consultants it seems, and ignores the critics. A big responseability.
      And you suggest that there is bias for Dr B. analysis as to the worse case, failure well before it reaches elevation 39 m.
      I feel there is some lack of certainty for either position, but feel inclined toward Dr B, but I also defer to your opinion that it "most likely requires deeper analysis for sure".
      That a drilling pipe sank some 20 ft or more under it's own weight is a common sense warning to many, that, lets say, suggests Oak Island is much more stable. To wager 13 billion dollars having a mayor component at what appears a large risk of possible failure seems insane and incompetent.
      Do you support Gordon's call for a panel of experts to assess the risk?
      Winston

      Delete
    3. PENG2 why do you assume that Bernander is presenting the worst case scenario and not conclusions derived from the appropriate models? Your attempt at equivalency is very Trumpian. Do you acknowledge Nalcor used shear strengths not appropriate for glaciomarine clays? What deeper analysis is required??

      Your jargon laden spin amounts to not a hill of beans but you sound majestic as usual. You refuse to answer the fundamental question I have posed. Where has a dam been affixed to glaciomarine clays in the past? Is this best practice? Why do you continue to claim geoologic credentials when you continue to obfuscate the facts and spin an equivalency that does not exist? I think the triaxial matrix in your gearbox is sheared.

      Delete
    4. PENG2, Bruno claims "I think the triaxil matrix in your gearbox is sheared" made me chuckle. That Bruno is is sharpening is sense of humour....he just might made honorary Nflder status, me thinks.
      Winston

      Delete
    5. WA:

      Considering the drilling aspect, I have not been a fan of wash-boring for my jobs---I tend to think that there is too much disturbance downhole and that SPT of VT results are of little value other than to tell me the drilling program isn’t working and not suited to the soil overburden encountered. For the drill pipe to ‘sink’ 20’ (I believe overnight was quoted somewhere) this wouldn’t be unusual at depth, but we also know that there was a mechanical issue with the machine since the pipe is usually held either in the jaw or by the head---based on this (either rookie errors or mechanical issues or reporting mistakes) and thus I am suspect of the entire operation and its results.

      Considering your questions about Gordon’s call for indepth expert review, I think I have answered that more than once.


      Bruno:

      My statement for Dr B considering worse case isn’t an assumption---he states that he assumes properties of other glacio clays he encountered in Europe. I have not seen his data set(of European or NA clays), but do know Engineers are typically conservative by nature and thus without extensive lab testing and modeling it would be natural for Dr B to assume a value on the low end of the probable property spread. All I am saying by this, is we have a spread of best case of no failure(Nalcor) and worse case catastrophic failure(Dr B)---rest assured the result will be somewhere in that range, but we don’t have the info to determine what the result will be, or at least I haven’t see it presented publically yet. My other reason for saying this is that clays ‘typically’ show signs of failure before letting go, provided you know what to look for most often remediation can be attempted, whether successful or not is dependent on the situation.

      Whether the shear strengths Nalcor assigned are appropriate or not, I cannot say---what I can say is that I have not seen any indication that the necessary explorations/testing/modeling were completed, so if I were to write a paper or complete initial modeling exercise I would also probably use worse case for parameters as Dr B did.

      Founding any structure on a type 4 soil is technically challenging---I don’t understand the reasoning for it, typically the treatment would be to excavate it out or soil improvement before construction, why Nalcor proceeded this way I can’t comment on.

      PENG2

      Delete
    6. Can't comment on Nalcor "Founding any structure on a type 4 soil is technically challenging" completely disqualifies your analysis. If you can't vouch that this dam tied to glaciomarine clay will stand why does anything you say have value?

      So much you of your claims are false. You have no evidence the world expert on these matters can't determine the characteristics of European and NA clays are similar. Why except to set up a straw dog? Dr B assumed the characteristics he KNOWS the spur, not assumes the spur contains.

      And thank you for your stunning conclusion after all your drivel. The dam will either fail or it will not! Thanks Einstein!

      The most egregious piece of bullshit you use to justify disgracing that ring is " clays ‘typically’ show signs of failure before letting go". You obviously have not heeded Bernander's warning of sudden and unexpected liquefaction of these soils.

      Admit it, you are motivated solely by cash flow (and ignore deadly mud flows). You use your credentials to mislead and obfuscate the reality . Shame on you.

      Delete
    7. Bruno:

      You need to fully read and understand statements and reports---you often take part of a statement and spout off without context.

      As I have clearly said, to my knowledge Dr B has never handled nor extensively tested the subsurface materials in the Lower Churchill Valley or under the spur, nor I have never seen him claim he has.

      Based on an inadequate (Dr B's words) testing program he has assumed values on the lower end on the property curve based because he feels the material more closely resembles the 'quick' type clays he knows well. This issue even has Jim G being quoted above (by PlanetNL) as to the missing piece is a testing program and that Dr B assumed properties.

      As I said previously followed by your poor attempt at humor that the key missing element here is a matrix of lab testing (shear, triaxial and centrifuge etc). Based on what I have ready in the AMEC geo reports I am not even sure the inadequate field programs have been executed properly.

      Also, please quote 1 statement I have made that is false---I have asked you to do this several times and you ignore this request and have produced nothing other than venom. Either prove me making a false statement or let it go....

      PENG2

      Delete
    8. "Based on an inadequate (Dr B's words) testing program he has assumed values on the lower end on the property curve based because he feels the material more closely resembles the 'quick' type clays he knows well".

      That seems to be a narrow, inadequate and misleading representation of Dr. Bernander's analyses PENG2.

      Is it because you don't understand Dr. Bernander's analyses, or chooses to minimize and/or misrepresent them?

      Delete
    9. Maruice:

      A direct quote of Dr B from his submission to the PUB:

      'Hence it is this Reviewer’s assessment that safety factors based on this stress-strain model, including those offered in the REPORT, are not well founded and cannot be accepted without
      further supporting evidence. The inevitable conclusion is that the safety and reliability of the Muskrat Falls dam have not been demonstrated.'

      I have good respect for Dr B, but it is clear that his opinion is that there is not enough data. He is correct--there is not enough testing/modeling to support the Nalcor stance, but that is all I can say.

      Going on in his submission he also offers a testing regimen and several ways to confirm the parameters selected.

      PENG2

      Delete
    10. Bruno's prodding sometimes gets a response that sheds a little more light. It seems we have inadequate field data and analysis to have high certainty of what might happen. Peng2 clearly states his doubts that the design is safe, is my read. Yet Bruno is like a crackie dog , and won't let go.....but hard to fault him him as the consequences are so substantial.
      Gil Bennett compared the rock excavation 2 tears ago, for the other side of the river, to the Great pyramid in Egypt. Years ago they found hidden tunnels, and recently I hear they found more. Still trying to know fully what is there. But the stability suggests it was not built on quick clay. The characteristics of the North Spur is little known, due to inadequate testing and analysis.....quick clay....yes, how much, what type, how strong, how weak, how dangerous, but what is known is troubling, very much so.
      I think Peng2 agrees on this. He agrees with Gordon that a panel of experts should evaluate this further. But Bruno would like to see him throw away his iron ring, for not ringing the alarm more. No ethics Bruno would say.
      Of course Bruno does veer off when challenged on a technical point........."technobabble" is a phrase he uses. But in the end which side, Nalcor or Dr B, has the correct technobabble, is the question. And this should have been known before sanction. It should be known before flooding. It seems they may not really want to know.....and roll the dice, as Williams did.
      Stan Marshall says he is certain that the North Spur will not fail. If he used his lawyer's language and said "it Shall Not Fail", would this give more certainty? Or just sound better. After failure would he say "I depended on the expertise of my consultants, and in house engineers , including PENG2......not my fault"?
      Gosh, would there be criminal consequences if there was loss of life from failure? Or just a fine to Nalcor, paid by ratepayers?
      WA

      Delete
    11. PENG2 You do exactly what you accuse me of with your self serving prattle. Bernander stated NALCOR did not have the data to determine the spur is safe, not that Bernander could not draw a conclusion.

      You don't answer the fundamental question I keep asking. Has anyone tied a dam to marine clays and what particular expertise do you have to question Bernander, save for your financial interest, on his methodology?

      You seem unaware of Occam's Razor. You need not look for more complex solutions when the obvious one before you answers the question. Your questions are uninformed. Answer the fundamental one. Where has this been done on marine clays by engineers inexperienced in large civil works? Is it prudent to proceed? What more that is coherent do you have to say?



      Delete
  9. Once the North Spur fails and the whole MF development become useless concrete and earthworks, will we still have to pay off the billions?
    How many billions?
    Is there project construction insurance?
    Who is the beneficiary of such insurance?
    How much insurance is there, if any?
    What happens if the Goose Bay airport is destroyed?
    Can HV-GB be resettled to higher ground, if so, where?
    Will North West River be flooded by the surge?
    Rigolet?
    Will the new transmission lines be safe from effects of the North Spur failure?
    Will electricity rates remain stable by using Churchill Falls feed over the new transmission lines, if they survive?
    Will we still have to pay for the new transmission lines?
    How much?
    Will Emera sue us for billions more?
    Is the North Spur disaster the OUT that will get us out of the soup?





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tor, please be patient two more years for the Government "Inquiry" to respond to your questions.

      Delete
    2. Hey Robert, cut it out, black humour is my end of the rink!

      Delete
    3. Smile, just another senior's moment.

      Delete
  10. I'd like to see nalcor buy the housing in the lowest elevations of Happy Valley for their employees and families.
    rgb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I second that, "rgb".

      Then, I would fill the reservoir up to the maximum flood level of 45 metres and closely monitor that spur. (In the absence of better testing...)

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

      Delete
    3. I see you are a fan of Russian Roulette Ex-Military Eng. Is build the bridge slowly and watch for signs that it will fall down the reminder that iron ring symbolizes?

      Delete
    4. (I was ironic as you noticed)

      Good analogy with the Russian Roulette; that's what we'll be doing by filling this reservoir in 2019.

      Delete
    5. In my younger years with the military, we had to build what we called "non-standard bridges" for training or helping civilian authorities.

      The term Roulette Russe was often used by the first (scared) drivers crossing those bridges. They never collapsed thought ;-)

      Delete
    6. Thanks but you did not answer the question. Does not that iron ring warn of the very arrogance you display with your build it slowly despite good analysis warning of failure?

      Delete
  11. For a look at a fully developed plan for transition to 80% renewables by 2050 incorporating efficiency, renewables, battery storage and legislation encouraging foreign investment in new technology in Germany see:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvceQ0T80Zc

    Compare this with the dinosaur, wasteful energy plan by Nalcor at ridiculous prices. One is creating the future of energy production, distribution and consumption, the other building an expensive and deadly buggy whip factory, guaranteed to lose money and hurt consumers.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bruno, you cite Germany to achieve 80 percent renewables by 2050
    On the island here we had ,I think, 88 percent renewables before Muskrat sanction. Germany you cite efficiency first, as we should have, and we could have near 100 percent renewables in 2022, without MF.
    Step one , priority for the efficiency.......and you know what that is, and scale up takling the big users .resistance electric heaters, that resistance hot water, basement insulation etc
    Step 2, priority for renewables :wind , some island hydro and storage if needed.
    We could have been light years ahead of Germany in achieving 100 percent renewable power. I fib , not light years, but say 40 years ahead. Do you agree?
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Winston hydro is renewable in one sense. It also destroys rivers and cultures as we see in Labrador and wild rivers are not being created. The UNEP does not consider hydro green energy because of downstream impacts. Renewable? Maybe. Green? Not so much.

      You miss the point of that piece Winston. The relentless DSM so that consumption has decreased in total, grid redesign to accommodate (green)renewables, 5 mW battery storage replacing 50 mW of fossil spinning reserve etc.

      Would you call NL Hydro an efficient, well maintained and planned system? Did you forget about Dark NL and the analysis? The Nalcor plan was to promote wasteful use of baseboard electric to mop up MF remember? Don't forget Honest Ed Martin informing us NLers are not interested in conservation. Time to deal with what you have not what you wish you had.

      Delete
    3. Agree that hydro is both renewable and not totally green. Nothing is totally green exceep the gras in summer and Kermit the frow. Even the the production of solar and wind technology and a non green factor....there is published data on relative greenness.
      We agree that relentnes DSM should be a hugh priority. Yes Nalcor and Nfld Power promotes wasteful baseboard electric heat.
      When did Nfld hydro cross over to the Dark side? Probably once under the Nalcor umbrella.
      Todays telegram reports Jim Learning return from the sharing circle with the Land protectors to rejoice that OPEC may help oil prices here ......but worry about US shale keeping prices low. Rob Strong of the local industry says we are not a major player ( Minister Coady had said we were # 4 on the world stage) Strong warns of advancements in alternative energy .wind and solar.
      Meanwhile in Venesula 65 has been arrestd in oil industry related corruption .including the ez- president of the state oil company, including actions depriving the state of 500 million.......the left wing govn saying they want oil wealth for the poor........left or right there will be corruption from oil wealth......ours poured into the MF fiasco.
      And NOIA-Hibernia announced its annual scholarships, started in 1976 ..the year of first oil there. The scholarships value of 100,000.00.
      Whoops, I fib, intentionally : it is just one scholarship of 1000.00, but made the Telegram photo...to a female engineering student, wanting to work in the oil industry. Guess she never heard of global warming, and seeks a faster destruction of our environment. OIL Industry.....1000.00 scholarship for all of Nfld. How generous. Even Mel Woodword managed the smll sum of 10,000.00 per year, and the Jameson family seeks funds from the public for 1500.00
      Where is our local Warren Buffett and Bill Gates?
      Winston

      Delete
    4. Bruno, while Hebron just announce first oil at great local delight, last night I hit first winter defrost cycle in my attic mounted minisplit, at 10:30 pm. Outdoor conditions would have seen conditions for defrost since Sept 28, when temperatures at night dropped below 40F. I had hoped to see no defrost until December , but missed that by 1.5 hours. Likely this last 7 months was defrost cycle free.
      Little steps, as you say. And I have had to refuse several media requests to see the setup, just overwhelmed by the DSM lobby group, and Take Charge! But worse, even you, Bruno is not impressed, my biggest disappointment.
      Winston

      Delete
    5. Funny thing Winston. This morning, the first frosty night we had I had to put my front mounted wee Willie into the defrost cycle for the first time this year! It was my biggest disappointment.

      Delete
    6. Sometimes I'm slow. "Front mounted wee willie"....i wondered if a window mounted AC or Heatpump, and wondered if you were making a joke , realized you refer to our penis.......shame Bruno, you risk sensor..........but I suggest it pass, but you threw me for 15 seconds.......how stunned of me to think you too would monitor defrost cycles.
      But more serious, I found by accident that attic mounting seems t knock out about 90 percent of defrost cycles compared to outdoor mounting.
      This is significant both for energy saving and the life of the units. I would have thought you might surmise a benefit beyond you making a joke. Need I bore you with numbers?
      Winston

      Delete
  13. For those wondering how they might cope with double electricity rates, and now using baseboard heaters, here is the latest on my attic mounted minisplit heat pump monitoring, year round heating 1000 sq ft at 73 F.

    For NOV it used 290 kwh, so at a rate of 10cent, it would be 29.00.
    Of that , Nov 13 included a full day of baseboard heat for COP comparison and used 2.00 more than necessary, otherwise , it would be 27.00
    For the warmest 6 months May to Oct the energy used was$79.00, from Apr to Nov , it now stands at 139.90.
    I had previously assessed form meter reading 268.00 for a full year.
    Current monitoring is much more accurate, and recorded , with data every 6 seconds. I expect a full year will not exceed 300.00 But that would require just $160.10 over the next 4 coldest months. If I deduct the energy used for a few days on baseboard heat , and about 10.00 for AC this summer, it would allow about 180.00 for heat over the next 4 months, so about 45.00 average. I expect a bit more than that for Jan and Feb, and maybe a bit lower for Dec and March.
    Stay tuned.
    Winston Adams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please don't forget to mention that non-standard mounting of a MSHP condenser unit in an enclosed space such as an attic may void the manufacturer's warranty on the condenser unit.

      Also, attic-mounting the unit effectively renders it useless as a cooling air conditioner during the summer months.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    2. Anon is anxious to suggest that attic mounting may void the mfg warranty. I have no indication that it may void a mfg warranty. Mfg warranty on compressors vary from about 5 to 10 years, other parts typical 1 year. Mfs wants units protected from adverse weather, and may void warranty if not so protected. Attic mounting gives the ultimate in weather protection and may double the life of the unit. Life is 12-18 years, depending on who you believe, so maybe 15 years is to be expected. i would like 20 or more years. Attic mounting may extend life to 30 years, but some components may fail before then, and only time will tell.
      As to attic mounting for summer AC, not a problem at all in coastal Nfld. Highest attic temp this year was 100F, which dropped to 95 F during AC mode, using about 300-400 watts to cool indoors. Worked like a charm. Max attic temp for non operation for AC would be 115F. If attic exceeds this, a direct inlet from the eave to the unit would feed cooler outdoor air to the unit for excellent operation.
      Anon seems opposed to attic mounting, hides his identity, and is short on facts. perhaps he is a Take Charge scallywag?
      Winston

      Delete
    3. Quite a bit of speculation and conjecture in your response, sir.

      Other than that, there's really nothing there that merits a rebuttal.

      Delete
    4. Lol, "may void warranty", "Attic-mounted renders it useless", would have thought someone talking with some authority, so could have fooled me too as a scallogwag, or at least a supporter. But note he/she does not deny being a scallogwag, just that it does not deserve a rebuttal, and appears to be quite familiar with the term, take charge scallogwag....but as some say, if the hat fits, wear it.

      Delete
    5. Anom @ 19:56..........Only speculation is whether you are a Take Charge scallywag. Otherwise I state facts, different from your speculation, and you see nothing to rebutt!
      But you seem a polite person, to call me sir, which seems rather formal. I was once an officer in the military reserve, but I prefer not to be addressed as SIR, and not fond of calling other SIR.
      Hey , Bruno has called me nasty named at times, but he doesn't hide his name, which I try to overlook his insults, but he is touchy on the size of his carbon foot print...strange for a enviromentalist, who calls for transparency from others .........
      and he too just doesn't get the idea of a attic mounted minisplit....sad. I expect he'll come around.
      Correct me on my speculation and conjecture......identify yourself and the reason for your obvious objection to my evidence based results. Would you like to inspect the setup and monitoring? Otherwise, as the other person notes, if the term scallywag fits, wear it. If not a scallywag, and just misinformed, then I have been to harsh, no doubt. Which is it?
      Winston

      Delete
    6. I am more touchy about the size if my wee Willie Winston.

      Winston it is a simple question posed. Does attic installation void the warranty. So far all you have said is maybe. It is not helpful giving advice that the manufacturer prohibits.

      Delete
    7. Bruno, carbon foot print ........you are indeed touchy about. As to Wee Willy, Trump has the same problem.
      As to the simple question posed.......you speculate that I give advise that the mfg prohibits.
      I know no mgf that prohibits that , if you do, let me know. I have seen units mounted 2 inches from a outdoor wall of a house. that is prohibited. as it restricts air flow.
      I am giving performance when installed in a attic that does not impede air flow and works much better than outdoors. Seems common sense, ...... but I would put it in the attic with no warranty, if properly installed. In Texas they put hot water tanks in the attic, I am told,....but here in the basement.
      One mfg will not warranty if less than 5 miles from the sea!. Guess they have poor corrosion protection.
      If there is a code against attic mounting, I guess they need to change the code. Such things happen. I know of no such code .
      Surely if I can spend 2 years to monitor, in the attic and out side........someone else can contact a factory to settle their speculation on warranty?
      You say I promote this so I should have all the answers. Musk (I am no Musk) had a object penetrate the bottom of his Tesla, it caught fire, .......so designed a special plate on the bottom. Did he suggest he could not give a warranty. Maybe other suggested it.
      Tell me the reason why mfg should not warranty for appropriate attic mounting.......
      Nfld Power proposed that EVERY minisplit in Nfld would fail in our winter cold snaps or adverse weather........and so give NO incentives as in NS and may other jurisdictions. Few fail outdoors. Essentially none would fail in the attic.
      You sure you are environmentally friendly, and don't own Fortis shares, as you oppose the most effective technology for Nfld for energy saving and peak demand reduction.
      Bruno, you seem to be an enigma , wrapped in a riddle, as Churchill said of Russia.
      Heat a small house for 300.00 a year.......and you worry about the warranty! Find out Bruno, if you are that concerned. My attic unit is starting on year 8, and like new.........knock on wood.
      At present I study defrost cycles at 100 percent RH outdoors tonight, but not near so damp in the attic. Outdoor mounting is the rage, and then they try to better protect it. Stun or what?
      Winston

      Delete
    8. No Winston you are the mini split evangelist, I have no particular knowledge about them. Sorry but the most"efective technology for Nfld for energy saving and peak demand reduction" is burning hardwood. It also is a locally produced (and grown product). The point dear Winston is there is more than one way to skin a cat.

      I have no firsthand knowledge of mini split warranties and installation. Someone asked you that question and you said maybe. This is bad advice to give anyone if attic installation voids the warranty. You should be sure before giving expert advice.

      Your rigid evangelical mini split promotion is fine but is not the only way to reduce ones footprint. It also should be fact and warranty safe or you do a disservice.

      I am sure you are just as rigid and evangelical about your carbon footprint calculations. I grow most of my food (organically), burn zero carbon wood for heat, drive a sixteen year old car. The typical car has a life of 8 years or so. 30% of a vehicles emissions come in manufacture, before it leaves the assembly line. Would your "calculations" of my footprint give me a 30% discount on my vehicle emissions for my reuse and recycle strategy?

      The point Winston is that calculation you make is subjective and follows your evangelical bent but offers little practical value unless you see and consider the bigger picture.

      Delete
    9. Oh my dear Bruno.....let the scales fall from your eyes:
      1. My calculation are subjective? The monitor spits out and records energy use, at times I do a comparison for COP compared to baseboard heat. A rough estimate is that attic mounting may improve energy saving 50 percent. But they already have a COP of about 3, 300 percent avg efficiency , so 50 percent more is about 17 percent improvement. A solar panel is about 20 percent efficient, and if they gain 10 percent now and again, that is great. Last time I checked First Solar used panels about 14 percent efficient.
      For a 15 year life , and 10 cent power, one may expect to pay off a unit in 6 years, and save 15,000.00 on heat. Attic mounting may achieve 30 year life, so 30,000.00 saving, and 60,000.00 if rates are 20 cents. That is not chicken feed. Who would not be evangelical if such results are valid. I am not alone. ICF in 2015 cites this type equipment as the largest single measure for nfld energy saving potential........and that was for outdoor mounting.
      2. Never said minisplits was the only way.....just one of the best ways, and perhaps the best for Nfld.
      3. I agree that hardwood is a great asset going to waste. I have repeatedly endorsed wood, but many would chose the convenience of electric minisplits. Minisplits and wood go hand in hand.
      4, Agree there is more than one way to skin a cat. I have never skinned a cat, nor seen one skinned. I did own Artic cats in the past. I did shoot and skin one seal. It was not pleasant, and never want to repeat it. But I like seal meat, and it is very good food, now making inroads at high end resturants.
      5. You are right that manufacture of cars and products effect the environment, and that long life is important. Your car is 16, mine is 13.........a Prius, what make is yours and MPG ? I do not dwell on carbon footprint that much , but we all should do so more......hence the carbon tax issue.
      6. I grow no food, so you beat me hands down there. But organic has little meaning for nutrition, as to omega 3, the good fatty acids. Most organic food is loaded with omega 6, the bad fatty acids..... so depends on the meaning of organic , as cattle and dairy cows are fed organic corn etc but not grass fed. last night I ate my first bison burger, but maybe prefer local moose, especially moose......to lighten up on junk meat.
      8. that you admit you know little of minisplits and installation.........I too am ignorant on many subjects, welcome to the club. We all know little in the grand scheme of things.
      9. I expect the minor issue of MSHP warranty will be answered in due time.
      Winston

      Delete
    10. I drive a Honda Civic 40+MPG but this not a pissing match. I got over the "I will show you mine if you show me yours" syndrome in my sandbox days Winston.

      There is not much good eating in an Arctic Cat Winston. After being vegetarian for a decade I decided to be an honest meat eater. I raised pigs, killed, skinned and disemboweled them to feel like an honest carnivore. If more people realized that packaged pork chop means you put the knife in that animals throat and slit it, people would eat less meat. That would mean more protein for humans (cows consume 7 pounds protein for each pound of meat) and there would be less methane cow farts. Do you want to start a club a seal for the climate campaign Winston?

      Organic food not more nutritious? Surely you jest. Food science, supported by agribusiness test only for the nutrients they choose, they ignore taste and understand little about nutrition. I trust my senses in food as well as politics. If it is tastier it is better. If it smells of chemical residue or lies and deception, I trust my senses not the self serving half truths or outright lies.

      Delete
    11. Once owned a Honda Accord....and but later opted for the 60 mpg Puius.......yes it is a pissing match to keep moving forward with efficiency. Are you not a Musk Tesla fan? Electric get equivalent to over 100mpg........Musk is pissing against GM , Nissan and other , is he not? You change your tune to suit the occasion, maybe?
      You say I miss the big picture.........one must define local vs big pictures........can hardwood provide energy for a city of 20 million? But hardwood is great for many local areas, especially Nfld central. I try to assess the local, but also the world, but different solutions for different areas, I think you agree.

      I read that kelp reduced cow farts.

      My grandfather clubbed seals, but I shot but one 40 years ago. And you want to put me down as a clubber for that? While you kills pigs regular. Inuit are eat seal meat regular....they have a 9 fold decrease in heart disease.
      Our western diet is way off balance 15 to 1 , should be closed to 1 to 1, i understand for omega 6 to omega 3, due to industrial processes etc.
      For taste most like Kentucky fried and Big Macs sugar drinks and sugar dessert etc.......instead of sardines ............are you suggesting KFC is better? A Cathy Bennett admirer/ Say it isn't so. But I hope you mean your tastes are tuned to nutritious food.......maybe a learned expereince that many don't have.
      Costco NS chicken , organic shows 10 to 1 , I beleive for omega 6 to omega 3.............so that organtic chicken is good?
      I must be misinformed?
      UG has had one piece on health issues...Wiser Choices........we need more evidenced based data.
      WA

      Delete
  14. Now Manitoba Hydro's new hydro and transmission is pushing rates through the roof in Manitoba. They want 8% a year increase to offset the ridiculous investment in a decadent technology, remote hydro.

    Now they want to resort to smoke and mirrors, using carbon taxes to offset the high prices. This amounts to taking money from different pockets of the same jeans. Does this sound familiar to NL rate/taxpayers keeping rates at 17 cents?

    http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1525565-hydro-chair-says-manitobas-new-carbon-tax-could-be-used-to-offset-rising-rates

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wondering why Mr. Ball dropped the ball on next year's plans to introduce a carbon tax in NL. Does he even have a clue why carbon reduction is an imperative?

      Delete
    2. With a population barely the size of Hamilton ON and the consequent negligible contribution to total global emissions... a carbon tax in NL would be just another bloody "deficit levy".

      Delete
  15. Just asking, has anyone in the past month or so experienced having difficulty posting a comment to this blog. I have, especially in the past few days. Road signs appear asking me to play their silly game and prevents me from publishing my comment. Was wondering if it was similar to the Trumpie-Russia scam to influence persons from using this blog. Yes, we have our own style of Russia Trumpie propaganda....any comments...!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually easier this past few days

      Delete
    2. Got similar problems too for the last 48hrs (via my laptop).

      (And it's not the "not a robot" proofing)

      No problems thought via my mobile.

      Delete
  16. The only "road sign" you should experience is the request by Google for proof you are not a robot which requires only a click on the box. Other problems please report.

    ReplyDelete
  17. UG recently reported on our low rainfall, Nfld Hydro already using more fossil fuel to spare the hydro water reserve, which will cost us plenty, and risk of outages this year......but don't worry, be happy says Nfld Hydro.
    One would hope for more rain leading into the high space heating season, where our loads go from summer time of about 600MW to 1700MW.
    Torbay airport results for OCT we had 38mm (last year 147), and Nov just finished 113mm (last year 388)
    So we are down 61 percent in this area for these 2 critical months needing lots of rain.
    Worry? I have 2 prices on a vented propane backup for heat....hope I don't have to use it. Plan to have it installed before Xmas. Or I could take the word of Nfld Hydro.......what a joke!
    I have a unused kerocene heater and several gallon of fuel , now some 15 years old, never used. Anyone interested?
    Winston

    ReplyDelete
  18. Brian Jones piece in the Telegram today :Read it and weep", refers to the terms of reference for the Muskrat Inquiry.
    He says "the terms are politically motivated, manipulative, and are as fraudulent as the project they profess to examine.
    He says the largest question that needs to be asked already has an answer. How did this disaster happen? It happened because the Nfld public is gullible and malleable".
    Sounds like the phrase of a century ago: Nflders are too green to burn"
    As I Nflder, I do not dispute that.
    This blog strives to inform us that we be less gullible. Thanks Des.
    PF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No PF you and yours are not gullible, you have been betrayed by self serving despots and Brian Jones and his ilk failing their responsibility as the Fourth Estate. They do not investigate and inform and they do not hold power to account.

      It is left to blogs like this one to inform, investigate and encourage democratic dialogue. There is only one hope. May the Fourth be with you so to speak. Jones and his clan need to rediscover the "investigative" part of their profession. So far they have faithfully repeated the Nalcor lies of the day and done the emperors bidding.

      Delete
  19. As an NL ratepayer and taxpayer (we are the same people), I sincerely hope that the North American professional engineers, that say they have made the spur safe against failure and sealed the reports with their engineering stamps, have done the job well and are proven right. I am sure that the people of Mud Lake fell the same way. Stan Marshall has read the reports and is satisfied that there will be no catastrophic failure.
    If the Swedish scientist is correct however, the cost to Mud Lake and to the entire province will be enormous.
    Either way the dairy farmers of Canada and those who sell facial egg remover should do well because there will be egg on the faces of either a lot of yea-sayers or a lot of nay-sayers. As NL rate and taxpayers, let us all hope for the best outcome after reservoir filling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe "best outcome", sometime in the future would be the restoration of the river to natural flow. It could be that the whole operation is based on false economy, as well as Safety issues. Mother Nature will decide. Engineered structures often fail.

      Delete