Lolli pop lolli pop ooohhh lolli pop

To quote an accommplice who has given me a topic or two for my blog, have we been offered the lolli pop?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8sZcmQr6KY

I like lolli-pops too, but I’m gonna hold out for a tastier treat too I think.

And to James on the Lower rates site, where are you? I see you have not posted since
“1.14.2010 at 10:41 am James at Government of New Brunswick :”

This was two days after that fateful meeting where somone’s world was turned upside down. Did it take that long for someone to get through to Charest’s office and utter those famous words ” Houston, we have a problem”.

James, have you been meeting with your Hill & Knowlton advisors scripting new information to feed us? We all might get a little hungry if a single lolli-pop is all you have.

But, without some concrete information to reasearch, it's hard to say how much the new MOU will really change anything. But a high five and congratulations to all those who particpated in any form for the past 2 1/2 months. From letter writing, to blogging, to protesting, to attending information meetings, to talking one on one with your mla, to being one of those 8 people who sent Keir an email, and to online partipaction in everyone's favorite social media.

The graham cracker has been broken !! Maybe the pieces are not small enough yet, but...

I imagine tomorrow will be a busy day. The comparisons will start. The spinning wheel will need to be wound up and sprung free. The teleprompter scripts will be typed up. Crib notes will be handed out to all 32 mla's of the kind required for "yah" instead of a "nay". Opposition parties will be asking for a resignation. Online news story commenters will be calling someone a liar. Again. And Again. And think about it. How many times has Graham said "this is the best deal for New Brunswickers" and now the quote is "We will present an improved deal ... that, I think, is better for Quebec and that will also be better accepted in New Brunswick," Charest said in Quebec City.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jSY7d5FPdtix52TSYqG3mM2VbCHA

I think there is a structural financial issue looming behind the scenes that is quite large. I think Quebec has stepped up their desire for any form of revenue, and I will state a comment a have said previously, that Graham was in the driver's seat with this , and should have held Charest over a barrell. A simple power purchase agreement, at a very favourable rate, that would have replaced the power required while Lepreau was being overhauled, plus as much oil as would have been required in the Coleson Cove and/or Dalhousie station would have been a good start. Throw in some extra for the large wholesalers like Saint John and Edmunston, and the large industrials like, well....... you know who. HQ still has a TW surplus, and while it sits in the headponds, it generates no revenue. Selling it to NB at any price is money in their ( Charest's) pocket.

But instead, Graham has chosen to still sell off the free fuel generation. Water is free, at least when it snows and rains, and the last time I checked, I believe the uranium comes from Canada. Maybe not free, but damn cheap compared to other sources. So here we have two home grown sources of fuel, that will provide at least 50% of the provinces electrical needs, in an already constructed infrastructure, not subject to third world instability, not subject to hostile takeover of foreign governments, and providing local jobs. Lepreau replacement costs are $16 million per month (from NB Power annual report). Assuming that will become profit next year when the refurbishment is fininshed, potential profit over the next 25 years will be :

$16,000,000 per month x 12 months per years x 25 years = $4.8 Billion.

Maybe some one should tell the NERA group so they can project that over infinity and see how much money we are losing.

Hydro alone has been averaging about 3 TW per year.

http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/sustainability/supplementarydocuments/StatisticalOverview_English_Nov%2019.pdf

3 TW hours is 3,000 Gigawatt hours, is 3,000,000 MW hours, is 3,000,000,000 KW hours.
To use 10 cents a kw hr for simplicity sake, that is $300,000,000 per year in revenue.

From the same source, Lepreau has been averaging over 4 TW per year when it runs. If the rest of the 14 TW heritage pool comes from Quebec, I feel bad for any independent power producers in NB. I think it will kinda shut them out in the cold.

Hydro Quebec's strategic plan published in September/October indicated they had 8.5 TW of surplus power because of all the industry they lost due to the economic slowdown. Their projections showed it taking almost 7 years before it started to shrink.

I don't even think HQ needs to sell us much power. I just think they need to have the higher priced revenue on their books to make it look good for those high cost dams they are building.

But 8.5 TW (HQ surplus) plus 4.1 TW (Lepreau) plus 3 TW (hydro) = 15.6 Tw . Lots to go around. Maybe that's why Charest is saying it's a better deal for Quebec. It uses up his surplus, and it didn't cost him so much. Way to go Graham.
.
.
.
.