Site C

Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: Site C

Post by Donald G »

To I Think ...

WADR while you are closely examining the pros and cons of politicians putting their names on large projects, the rest of B.C. is looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the project going ahead, as opposed to other possible projects.

Who cares what the dam ends up being called if, as appears clear, it offers one of the most cost efficient and ecologically clean sources of energy for the future.

You have to get over the dam emotional aspects of the damn dam. Most other people have already done so.
alfred2
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2005
Joined: Jun 29th, 2013, 11:02 am

Re: Site C

Post by alfred2 »

to i think what a bunch of crap, who cares what the dam is named.
User avatar
Hassel99
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3815
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2012, 9:31 am

Re: Site C

Post by Hassel99 »

I Think wrote:Donald and Hassel, Legacy projects such as dams, big bridges, airports etc are favored by politicians because they can have their names put on them. This makes the project a little bit more suspect, how badly does Cowdy Custard want his name on the bridge, or dam?
Legacy projects must always be looked at a little more carefully because of this.



I dont agree, that sounds stupid and petty.
I Think
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10550
Joined: May 29th, 2008, 6:12 pm

Re: Site C

Post by I Think »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/d ... am-project

Just one example of a legacy project.
We're lost but we're making good time.
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: Site C

Post by Donald G »

To I Think ...

Different country. Different project. Far different terrain, weather and river conditions.

Try again.
I Think
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10550
Joined: May 29th, 2008, 6:12 pm

Re: Site C

Post by I Think »

You don't get it don, a legacy project is any one that gets a politicians name on it might be an airport, bridge or office building.

These need to be looked at a little more carefully to ensure that the legacy portion, is not distorting the evaluations of need.
you are trying to make an issue out of a molehill.
We're lost but we're making good time.
User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Re: Site C

Post by Smurf »

A project can't be a legacy project unless it is a success. If this turns out to be a success, providing us with a large amount of safe, reliable, constant, power 24/7 for decades to come as I am positive it will, then she deserver her legacy.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
maple leaf
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2143
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 10:37 am

Re: Site C

Post by maple leaf »

It is irresponsible of the Christy Liberals to be pushing ahead with this project.There are still court cases pending that could halt the project.There has not been an analysis of the project done by the BC utilities commission ,the very organization put in place by this government to do just that ,but Christy Clark is refusing to have that done .The chair of the federal-provincial panel appointed to review Canada's largest current infrastructure project ,in an interview says there are just to many unanswered questions.IMO the only reason Christy Clark is pushing a head ignoring all opposition, is to prop up her failed jobs plan ,so come election time she can say ,see I created all theses jobs,but is it wise to be spending 9+ billion ,and if you think it will be 9 billion ,you are fooling yourself,as none of the Liberal projects have been on budget but in some cases billions over,and this project could be up to 18 billion ?. All just so Christy Clark can say she created jobs, with this make work project, that we don't really need.
18 billion could be spent in smarter ways and still create jobs.

In his first interview on the Site C dam, the chair of the federal-provincial panel appointed to review Canada's largest current infrastructure project said the B.C. government was unwise to green-light the project without a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission and would have been better off to delay the decision by a few years.

“There’s a whole bunch of unanswered questions, some of which would be markedly advanced by waiting three or four years,” Harry Swain told DeSmog Canada. “And you’d still be within the period of time, even by Hydro’s bullish forecasts, when you’re going to need the juice.”

Swain, a former deputy minister of Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, spoke to DeSmog Canada on his own behalf, not on behalf of the panel. In a wide-reaching interview, Swain also described the province’s failure to investigate alternatives to the dam as a “dereliction of duty.”

The B.C. government gave the go-ahead for BC Hydro’s Site C dam in December and construction is scheduled to begin this summer. If built, it will be the largest public infrastructure expenditure in the province’s history. The dam is facing six legal challenges, including one that alleges that Cabinet erred in dismissing key portions of the joint review panel’s findings on the project.

EXCLUSIVE: Site C Dam ‘Devastating’ for British Columbians, Says Former CEO of BC Hydro
‘This is a Watershed Moment’: Chief Vows to Be Arrested As Fight Against Site C Dam Ramps Up
The Forgotten Electricity that Could Eliminate Need for Site C Dam
‘Unprecedented’ Comments from Chair of Site C Dam Panel Raised in B.C. Question Period
‘Dereliction of Duty’: Chair of Site C Panel on B.C.’s Failure to Investigate Alternatives to Mega Dam
The Downside of The Boom: Fort St. John Mayor Worries Site C Dam Will Put Strain On Community
Two Hydro Dams and 16,000 Oil and Gas Wells: Has the Peace Already Paid Its Price For B.C.’s Prosperity?
Field of Dreams: Peace Valley Farmers, Ranchers Fight to Keep Land Above Water As Site C Dam Decision Looms
In Photos: This Valley Will Be Flooded if a Third Dam is Built on the Peace River
‘The Truth Would Set Us Free’: The Plight of the Peace Valley and the Site C Dam
Site C Dam is Final Straw for B.C.’s Treaty 8 First Nations
B.C. Business Community Slams ‘Astronomical’ Cost of Building Site C Dam
Three Decades and Counting: How B.C. Has Failed to Investigate Alternatives to Site C Dam
The 7.9 Billion-Dollar Question: Is the Site C Dam’s Electricity Destined for LNG Industry?
Only Four in 10 British Columbians Have Heard Of This $7.9B Mega Project — Have You?
The dam — which was first turned down by the B.C. Utilities Commission in the early 1980s — would be the third on the Peace River and would flood 83 kilometres of the Peace Valley, impacting 13,000 hectares of agricultural land. The project is opposed by B.C.’s Treaty 8 First Nations, several of which have filed lawsuits.

Swain’s panel made 50 recommendations to the provincial and federal governments, but stopped short of recommending for or against the project.

“The decision on whether the project proceeds lies with elected officials, not with the panel,” the 471-page report read.

“I’m still strongly of the view that review panels are advisors and governments get paid to make the decisions and live with the consequences at the next election,” Swain told DeSmog Canada.

But that didn’t stop him from outlining how he believes the government has acted prematurely.

“You shouldn’t take decisions before you need to,” Swain said. “That means you’ll have much more information when you finally have to take a decision. Building electricity facilities in advance of need only costs money.”

'Wisdom Would Have Been Waiting'

The panel’s report predicted that in the first four years of production, the Site C dam would lose at least $800 million because BC Hydro would generate more power than the province needs at a cost of $100 per megawatt hour — when the market price for that power is currently $30 per megawatt hour.

“Wisdom would have been waiting for two, three, four years to see whether the projections they were making had any basis in fact,” Swain said. “And they would have been able to make a better-informed decision and not necessarily a more expensive one.”

In its report, the panel wrote that it couldn’t conclude that the power from Site C was needed on the schedule presented, adding: “Justification must rest on an unambiguous need for the power and analyses showing its financial costs being sufficiently attractive as to make tolerable the bearing of substantial environmental, social and other costs.”

Some of the questions that still need to be answered, according to Swain, include the real cost and availability of alternatives, how B.C. should use its Columbia River rights, how British Columbians will react to increased electricity prices (which could decrease demand) and how the province’s liquefied natural gas industry will develop.

Panel Instructed Not to Pass Opinion on First Nations Rights

Asked why the panel didn’t render a “yes” or “no” answer on the Site C dam, Swain responded: “We weren’t asked to.”

Further to that, Swain — who wrote a book on the Oka crisis — outlined the limitations of the review process as it related to First Nations rights.

“They said that we were to catalogue the assertions of First Nations regarding treaty rights and aboriginal rights. But we were not to pass an opinion on them. We were not to say whether consultation had been adequate and so on and forth. If you are forbidden to talk about that, you can not come to a conclusion about the overall project,” Swain said.

“The question is: well, if we had recommended anything, what would we have said? And I think the conclusion is probably pretty apparent from the text. We would have said something to the effect that it might be wise to wait for a couple years and see if some of the projections on which the project rests eventuated. However, they didn’t ask — nor did they wait.”

Decision to Skip Review by B.C. Utilities Commission ‘Not Good Public Policy’

In its report to the government, the panel said it did not have the information, time or resources to look at the accuracy of cost estimates and recommended that, if the project proceeds, costs should be examined in detail by the province’s independent regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission.

“Knowing that the province had decided to exempt the project from the scrutiny of the utilities commission, we nonetheless felt that that was not good public policy and recommended otherwise,” Swain said. “They of course gave us the back of their hand.”

What did he think of the province ignoring that recommendation?

“I expected it entirely and I don’t think it was wise,” he added.

There were big financial questions — related to the borrowing of nearly $9 billion, the cost estimates for the project and the effect of rates on consumer demand — that the panel could not examine, Swain explained.

“That requires much, much more time and expertise,” he said. “Moreover it is a job that the utilities commission is specifically set up to be able to do.”

Government Documents Downplay Role of B.C. Utilities Commission

In documents obtained by DeSmog Canada via a freedom of information request, government spokespeople were prepped to respond to questions about why the project wasn’t referred to the utilities commission. The speaking notes were prepared for the Dec. 16 press conference announcing the B.C. government’s decision to move ahead with Site C.

“The BCUC does not actually have the capacity to do the kind of work that has been done by BC Hydro in analysing and reviewing the project, particularly the costs,” the speaking notes read.

“Well, whose fault is that?” Swain responded. “How about the owners of the utilities commission? It is their legislation that set it up to do specifically that job and if it hasn’t got the resources to do it, I think you’ve got to look back to the government.”

Swain noted that the government is essentially arguing that the proponent of the project, BC Hydro, should be relied on to review its own project.

“Is the answer therefore that such projects are only to be examined by the proponent?” Swain said. “Recall about the first thing that happened after they approved it was that they confessed, ‘Oh golly, the price is about a billion dollars higher than we thought.’ ”

Harry Swain

Harry Swain in his Victoria home during an interview with DeSmog Canada. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

The speaking notes obtained by DeSmog Canada also said: “The costs of Site C have been independently reviewed by KPMG and an independent panel of contractors — work that the commission would have contracted out itself regardless.”

When asked why, despite being well aware of the KPMG review, the panel still recommended a review by the utilities commission, Swain responded: “If you ask Lockheed Martin what the cost of the F-35 is going to be, they — the proponents — will give you a number. And if you believe that number, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell you.”

He noted that accounting firm KPMG was hired by the project proponent, BC Hydro.

“Consultants hired by the project proponent are being hired in part to demonstrate the reasonability of the work being done by the proponent,” he said. “The last thing that you’d expect would be for the consultants to BC Hydro to say ‘Oh golly, what an interesting error you’ve made.’ It just isn’t going to happen.”

And that’s at the crux of why the panel recommended the project be reviewed by the independent B.C. Utilities Commission — because its mission is “to ensure that ratepayers receive safe, reliable, and non-discriminatory energy services at fair rates from the utilities it regulates.”

“I think projects of that nature where the public purse — and the public interest much more broadly — is involved deserve a degree of scrutiny,” Swain said.

“I think the province was determined to go ahead with the project from the beginning.”

Read Part 2 of DeSmog Canada's Interview with Harry Swain: ‘Dereliction of duty’: B.C.’s failure to investigate alternatives to the Site C dam

Attachment Size
PDF icon SiteC-CleanEnergy-Project-Announcement-FOI.pdf 16.78 MB
http://www.desmog.ca/2015/03/10/exclusi ... view-panel
“If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”
— Albert Einstein__________________________
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: Site C

Post by Donald G »

Interesting that I recall the almost exact same arguments being made against the Mica Creek dam and the Kemano dam (Ootsa Lake) that was put in by Alcan who has continued to make nothing but money off of the "initially despised" venture. Not to mention the many benefits that were brought to the surrounding towns.

When all is said and done it appears that 93% of the land to be flooded is Crown Land and only 7% is privately owned.

The lake generated when the dam is full will be "two to three times the width of the existing river".
User avatar
maple leaf
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2143
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 10:37 am

Re: Site C

Post by maple leaf »

Donald G wrote:Interesting that I recall the almost exact same arguments being made against the Mica Creek dam and the Kemano dam (Ootsa Lake) that was put in by Alcan who has continued to make nothing but money off of the "initially despised" venture. Not to mention the many benefits that were brought to the surrounding towns.

When all is said and done it appears that 93% of the land to be flooded is Crown Land and only 7% is privately owned.

The lake generated when the dam is full will be "two to three times the width of the existing river".


The difference is Alcan was not funded by tax payers,costing us 9+ billion and was done with purpose that was needed. Mica Creek dam was also done with a purpose and was needed .Where as, Site C is not needed and there is no analysis saying otherwise and the very organization, BC utilities commission, put in place by the government to do that analysis to see if it is needed or not and would be in the best interests of all BC citizens is not allowed to do the job they should be doing ,before any work is started.It is irresponsible of Christy Clark to be pushing ahead with this project.
“If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”
— Albert Einstein__________________________
flamingfingers
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 21663
Joined: Jul 9th, 2005, 8:56 am

Re: Site C

Post by flamingfingers »

Site C is not needed now or in the near future for BC resident's power needs. Christy wants Site C developed to power her vision for LNG!!LNG!!LNG!! Upgrading existing dams and infrastructure improvements would be a more realistic, job-creating option - as well as getting rid of the IPPs that force BC Hydro to pay TWICE the amount for power that is not needed.
Chill
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: Site C

Post by Donald G »

To Maple Leaf ...

I take it that you are not aware that when Kemano was built Alcan had a use for less than half of the hydro the completed generating station could have produced.

They also drilled TWO tunnels through the mountain to provide for future power needs but the second tunnel sat there unused for about 25 years.

I have lost track of what it is now producing but do know that they continue to sell a lot of excess power.

IMO Kemano is an excellent example of how wrong people are who say that building a dam that will produce more power than immediately required is a complete waste.

Kemano and Mica Creek dams prove otherwise. It would cost BILLIONS to build them now and they were built for only millions.
User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Re: Site C

Post by Smurf »

Agreed Donald. I am willing to bet that just like Manitoba who are looking much more into their future than we are and I believe also have cheaper power because of it we will be able to sell excess power to help pay for the project. Alberta will be a very viable customer as they move ahead with their green initiatives. We might even find that like Manitoba we will be looking at possibly building more than one dam. It is the perfect time to be moving ahead with projects like this. We used to be a leader in Hydro production and were envied by other utilities. Now Manitoba hydro has taken over that position with the province and customers benefiting from their visions. It will be the exact opposite of the useless IPP's where every watt they produce is an expense and can only be sold at a loss due to the ridiculous contracts our government signed. We will also find that it will make all sorts of business's look at our province because we have a cheap, reliable, constant source of power available to them 24/7/365. This dam will be a plus in so many ways starting off with the possibilities of tourism based on the dam created. Handled properly I am willing to bet there are possibilities for future jobs for years to come.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
GrooveTunes
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2041
Joined: Feb 19th, 2006, 7:37 pm

Re: Site C

Post by GrooveTunes »

All posts are my opinion unless otherwise noted.
User avatar
maple leaf
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2143
Joined: Nov 6th, 2011, 10:37 am

Re: Site C

Post by maple leaf »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHOxwqr0lJE

Here is the opinion of the retired head of the Association of Major Power Users of BC, Dan Potts.On weather or not Site C will be economical viable ,or a disaster.There has not been any business case made to show the viability of building this dam,Christy Clark has not allowed the BC utilities commission to do it's job and make that determination.Why has the BC government circumvented due process on this project ,while smaller projects have all gone through such due process?Even the upgrading to be done on the WAC Bennet dam has gone through that very due process.http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedin ... etable.pdf
“If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”
— Albert Einstein__________________________

Return to “B.C.”