First off, I am again going to thank Joe Briggs for his comments, not so much because it added something important to the discussion, but because it added to the discussion. It is also appreciated that Joe seems to have the unique (in politics) ability to admit he does not know something.
He also very politely hands off responsibility for additional answers to a member, any member of the City Commission who may happen to know the answers. However, I have come to the conclusion that the City must not have any answers.
Just like they don't have important documents, and instead of just telling you, you can't have them, they make you run in circles...oh wait, the City can't tell him we won't give them to you.
Free Thought notes that the answers to my questions are not really relevant to the existence of the plant, or the City's involvement in the plant. He is correct to an extent. However, I believe it is too late to worry about the City being involved, they are. Which means that we all are. It is too late to figure out why, but it would be nice to know how, and to what extent, we are involved. And the information the City had, when they got it, how they used it to justify involvement, and the expected benefits that can be deduced from that information are things that more than a few people are interested in.
Which brings me to jocko.
The first time I read his comment, I thought, what a bunch of bullshit. It kinda grated on me.
I cannot believe that someone can read that Q & A and say the questions were answered with frankness and honesty. Does that include the questions that were not answered? How is it honest to answer a question with a statement that is in no way relevant to the question? How is it honest to state that there are no suprises on the horizon, what was it, two days before you learn your price tag just shot up a couple hundred million? How can you look at the big picture here and accept that there is no risk? Isn't there a risk that it will cost more than expected, and your power won't be as cheap as you thought, and you already have signed contracts stating what you are going to sell it for, and those water credits aren't gonna bail you out forever.....
Two more things real quick.
After everything is said and done, would this power be cheaper than power that will be available on the open market in 2010?
"Over the life of the plant, absolutely," Lawton said.
What does he mean by "over the life of the plant"? When they fire up that big ass boiler, start pumping 3,200 gallons per minute out of our river, start shoveling that beautiful black coal and pumping all those EPA approved chemicals and gasses and particulate matters into Big Sky Country, obscuring the Highwoods with a gray film of soot, When Lewis & Clark start coughing in their graves, On that day, at that minute, will this power be cheaper?
(sorry, got a bit carried away there)
And didn't that one study that just came out, the one the City got to calm down the bond underwriter, didn't it just say we are now shooting for competitive prices?
He also very politely hands off responsibility for additional answers to a member, any member of the City Commission who may happen to know the answers. However, I have come to the conclusion that the City must not have any answers.
Just like they don't have important documents, and instead of just telling you, you can't have them, they make you run in circles...oh wait, the City can't tell him we won't give them to you.
Free Thought notes that the answers to my questions are not really relevant to the existence of the plant, or the City's involvement in the plant. He is correct to an extent. However, I believe it is too late to worry about the City being involved, they are. Which means that we all are. It is too late to figure out why, but it would be nice to know how, and to what extent, we are involved. And the information the City had, when they got it, how they used it to justify involvement, and the expected benefits that can be deduced from that information are things that more than a few people are interested in.
Which brings me to jocko.
The first time I read his comment, I thought, what a bunch of bullshit. It kinda grated on me.
I cannot believe that someone can read that Q & A and say the questions were answered with frankness and honesty. Does that include the questions that were not answered? How is it honest to answer a question with a statement that is in no way relevant to the question? How is it honest to state that there are no suprises on the horizon, what was it, two days before you learn your price tag just shot up a couple hundred million? How can you look at the big picture here and accept that there is no risk? Isn't there a risk that it will cost more than expected, and your power won't be as cheap as you thought, and you already have signed contracts stating what you are going to sell it for, and those water credits aren't gonna bail you out forever.....
Two more things real quick.
After everything is said and done, would this power be cheaper than power that will be available on the open market in 2010?
"Over the life of the plant, absolutely," Lawton said.
What does he mean by "over the life of the plant"? When they fire up that big ass boiler, start pumping 3,200 gallons per minute out of our river, start shoveling that beautiful black coal and pumping all those EPA approved chemicals and gasses and particulate matters into Big Sky Country, obscuring the Highwoods with a gray film of soot, When Lewis & Clark start coughing in their graves, On that day, at that minute, will this power be cheaper?
(sorry, got a bit carried away there)
And didn't that one study that just came out, the one the City got to calm down the bond underwriter, didn't it just say we are now shooting for competitive prices?
posted by a-fire-fly at 12:03 PM
<< Home