Christy Clark's BC Liberal gang of con artists Site C Dam Boondoggle.....Even business friendly promoters are laughing at the BC Liberal's pure fiscal stupidity.....From BIV Magazine
___________
https://www.biv.com/must-read/#stalled-power-outlook-not-slowing-9-billion-site-c
Stalled power outlook not slowing $9 billion Site C dam project
BC Hydro’s second-quarter financials reveal lower demand from large industrial customers in depressed energy and commodities market
Feb. 16, 2016, 9 a.m.
BC Hydro’s second-quarter 2016 financial report
points to lower domestic power demand and a projected drop in 2016 sales
to large industrial customers resulting from mine and mill closures and
other effects of the global commodity nosedive.
The Q2 2016 numbers continue the theme in the Crown energy corporation’s 2015 fiscal report, showing stagnant electricity demand from large industrial customers in the province over the past decade.
Meanwhile, a January 25 U.S. Supreme Court decision supporting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s right to offer major power users financial incentives to curb power use during peak demand periods could dim BC Hydro’s power export prospects in North America via its Powerex subsidiary.
Despite those factors, opposition from First Nations and other groups and criticism from power analysts, the Crown power corporation’s $9 billion Site C dam remains on track, and Chris O’Riley, the Hydro executive overseeing the project, remains convinced of the long-term need for Site C’s capacity when it comes online in 2023, and of the fiscal prudence of the massive engineering project.
According to the Q2 report, revenue from Hydro power sales into the North American grid for the six months ended September 30, 2015, was down 44% compared with the same period a year earlier.
Among the reasons for the drop, according to the report: a 33% decrease in the average price of natural gas resulting from increased U.S. production.
Significant changes from the fiscal 2016 service plan noted in the report include a drop in large industrial and commercial categories “largely as a result of lower forecast customer load in the mining and pulp and paper sectors due to metal mine closures, closure of a major pulp and paper mill [Howe Sound Pulp and Paper] in July 2015 and lower commodity market outlook.”
Numbers in Hydro’s 2015 fiscal report show flatlining electricity demand from large industrial customers in the province over the past decade. Sales in that category have slipped 15% from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2015.
Those numbers have again raised questions over the need to invest billions in building Site C.
Robert McCullough, principal of energy policy research company McCullough Research, said the horizontal hydraulic fracking revolution has rendered Site C “an expensive luxury” in a world where the price of natural gas is roughly one-third of what it was in 2008.
In December, natural gas spot prices, according to OilPrice.com, hit their lowest monthly average since 1999.
McCullough’s May 2015 report for the Peace Valley Landowner Association questioned the math used in Hydro’s far-lower projection of per-megawatt-hour costs for Site C versus such alternatives as independent power projects.
In an interview with Business in Vancouver prior to a recent visit to Vancouver, the Portland, Oregon-based McCullough reiterated the concerns raised in his report over such issues as Hydro’s discount rate (cost of future money) for Site C and cost assumptions for Site C alternatives that Hydro used in its calculations to justify the project.
But he emphasized how dramatically the plunge in natural gas prices, generated by the advent of horizontal fracking technology, has changed the global energy marketplace – to the point that “only an idiot would be building a very expensive project in Canada instead of buying power on the open market.”
He pointed out that the chief expense for electricity generated by natural gas is the gas itself, which can now be bought far into the future relatively cheaply.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that natural gas prices will remain low and stable for the long term. According to its projections, spot natural gas prices will be lower in 2020 than they were in 2015.
In a December Site C information briefing with Business in Vancouver, O’Riley said that despite the recent drop in energy demand, Hydro is confident in its forecasts of 1.1% annual growth in electricity demand in B.C.
“You don’t build something like this [Site C] for today or even 10 years; you build it for the long term.”
O’Riley said the forecast is based in part on population migration to B.C. and “the continued reliance in B.C. on the resource sector,” regardless of whether liquefied natural gas export plants are built in the province or not.
“But we know you can never get supply and demand to match up perfectly, so we know we’ll be some years short and some years long, and we have got a good capability to optimize that, so we think … particularly in a carbon-constrained world, there’s a long-term benefit for low-cost, low-[greenhouse gas], reliable, dependable, firm power.”
Site C would add around 10% to the province’s overall annual electricity output of 60,000 gigawatt hours.
BC Hydro claims the cost for Site C power will be between $58 and $61 per megawatt hour, but that’s a cost levelized over 70 years. Actual costs in a given year could be much higher.
Power can be bought in the North American market for less than half that range.
Hydro estimates that Site C will result in ratepayers paying an average of $650 million less each year over the first 50 years of the dam’s operation compared with a power portfolio generated by independent power producers or natural gas.
O’Riley added that with interest rates so low, it’s a good time to invest in major power infrastructure projects like Site C.
As to the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Hydro’s power export prospects in America, Mike MacDougall, Powerex’s director of trade policy, said in an email that the changes will have little effect on Hydro’s trade with U.S. markets because they predominantly affect market-clearing prices during higher-priced hours and won’t significantly change overall market demand.
______________
That was a very good article.....Global BC...CKNW..Vancouver Sun or Province Newspaper hasn't produced that quality of truthful, accurate reporting on anything in 10 years or more...That BIV article was a refreshing read......Grant G February 17/2016
Below is a little something the Straight Goods put together on the not-needed Site C Dam boondoggle..
____________
Written by Grant G
(this factual article was originally posted in January 2015)
http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.ca/2016/01/site-c-dam-not-required-british.html
Christy Clark and the BC Liberals are now saying $15 billion dollar public dollar/taxpayer funded Site C Dam project is not about LNG but about an opportunity to sell Alberta clean electricity...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/clark-urges-trudeau-to-support-bc-megaprojects-that-benefit-canada/article28631015/
That's absurd, Alberta and Alberta industry will not pay the price, Alberta is building natural gas power plants that will create more power than Site C dam.., take up almost no space and cost 1/10th of the price.....Christy Clark is,...is unfortunately economically challenged, perhaps Christy Clark needs another university or college course....
_______________
________________
I present you a Straight Goods Special......
____________
Written by Grant G
In late December/2014....A couple of weeks after Christy Clark told Bloomberg in New York that British Columbia didn`t need Site C dam for the proposed LNG industry, Christy Clark also told Bloomberg the price of Site C was going up by potentially $billions of dollars, we are looking at $10 to $15 billion dollars to build Site C...Possibly $15 billion dollars for a very tiny bite of electric power...Expensive power, power we don`t need for LNG...The one group that looked at Site C and BC Hydro`s power for the future projected growth model...They came to the conclusion the power was not required, the case not made..!
Meaning there is no need to spend $15 billion dollars we don`t have, no need to put BC Hydro over $20 billion dollars in debt($15 billion plus the $billions of debt hidden in BC Hydro`s deferral accounts), BC Hydro would have as a crown corporation almost as much debt as British Columbia had when the BC Liberals came into power in 2001...Our provincial debt in 2001, including contractual debt, crown debt stood at that time about $28 billion dollars(now it`s almost $80 billion dollars, not counting contractual debt and crown corporation debt)...And these BC Liberals want to add $15 billion dollars in more debt for power we don`t need?..
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/bc-hydro-inflates-demand-justify-site-c-dam/
Here are Christy Clark`s own words.
"LNG is our priority in British Columbia and we don’t need to do Site C in order to fuel up the LNG industry,” Clark said, adding she ran for office on a pledge to establish the sector."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-10/british-columbia-clark-optimistic-on-lng-despite-oil-rout.html
Christy Clark`s mouth says we don`t need to spend $billions of dollars that we don`t have on Site C for LNG..
And guess who else says we don`t need Site C...
____________
"The retired head of the Association of Major Power Users of BC, Dan Potts, estimates the proposed Site C Dam would lose $350 million a year for taxpayers and BC Hydro ratepayers. The 30-year pulp mill manager told media in Vancouver yesterday that the project, estimated to cost $8 Billion or more, is “fundamentally uneconomic” – based on its outmoded technology and power trading prices that are likely to remain far lower than the cost of electricity produced by Site C.
Potts made the comments at a press conference organized by the District of Hudson’s Hope – where the 80 km-long reservoir would be located – to raise concerns about Site C in advance of the federal cabinet’s ruling on the project, expected this Fall.
Potts and other speakers, including agrologists, farmers, First Nations leaders and elected officials from the region, called for the BC Utilities Commission’s oversight of the project to be restored. The independent energy watchdog was stripped by the BC Liberal Government of its usual role of reviewing a project based on issues like cost and need. In the absence of that review, Potts worries that a project which makes no economic sense may receive unjustified approval.
“This project is turning gold into lead,” said Potts.
The Q2 2016 numbers continue the theme in the Crown energy corporation’s 2015 fiscal report, showing stagnant electricity demand from large industrial customers in the province over the past decade.
Meanwhile, a January 25 U.S. Supreme Court decision supporting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s right to offer major power users financial incentives to curb power use during peak demand periods could dim BC Hydro’s power export prospects in North America via its Powerex subsidiary.
Despite those factors, opposition from First Nations and other groups and criticism from power analysts, the Crown power corporation’s $9 billion Site C dam remains on track, and Chris O’Riley, the Hydro executive overseeing the project, remains convinced of the long-term need for Site C’s capacity when it comes online in 2023, and of the fiscal prudence of the massive engineering project.
According to the Q2 report, revenue from Hydro power sales into the North American grid for the six months ended September 30, 2015, was down 44% compared with the same period a year earlier.
Among the reasons for the drop, according to the report: a 33% decrease in the average price of natural gas resulting from increased U.S. production.
Significant changes from the fiscal 2016 service plan noted in the report include a drop in large industrial and commercial categories “largely as a result of lower forecast customer load in the mining and pulp and paper sectors due to metal mine closures, closure of a major pulp and paper mill [Howe Sound Pulp and Paper] in July 2015 and lower commodity market outlook.”
Numbers in Hydro’s 2015 fiscal report show flatlining electricity demand from large industrial customers in the province over the past decade. Sales in that category have slipped 15% from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2015.
Those numbers have again raised questions over the need to invest billions in building Site C.
Robert McCullough, principal of energy policy research company McCullough Research, said the horizontal hydraulic fracking revolution has rendered Site C “an expensive luxury” in a world where the price of natural gas is roughly one-third of what it was in 2008.
In December, natural gas spot prices, according to OilPrice.com, hit their lowest monthly average since 1999.
McCullough’s May 2015 report for the Peace Valley Landowner Association questioned the math used in Hydro’s far-lower projection of per-megawatt-hour costs for Site C versus such alternatives as independent power projects.
In an interview with Business in Vancouver prior to a recent visit to Vancouver, the Portland, Oregon-based McCullough reiterated the concerns raised in his report over such issues as Hydro’s discount rate (cost of future money) for Site C and cost assumptions for Site C alternatives that Hydro used in its calculations to justify the project.
But he emphasized how dramatically the plunge in natural gas prices, generated by the advent of horizontal fracking technology, has changed the global energy marketplace – to the point that “only an idiot would be building a very expensive project in Canada instead of buying power on the open market.”
He pointed out that the chief expense for electricity generated by natural gas is the gas itself, which can now be bought far into the future relatively cheaply.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that natural gas prices will remain low and stable for the long term. According to its projections, spot natural gas prices will be lower in 2020 than they were in 2015.
In a December Site C information briefing with Business in Vancouver, O’Riley said that despite the recent drop in energy demand, Hydro is confident in its forecasts of 1.1% annual growth in electricity demand in B.C.
“You don’t build something like this [Site C] for today or even 10 years; you build it for the long term.”
O’Riley said the forecast is based in part on population migration to B.C. and “the continued reliance in B.C. on the resource sector,” regardless of whether liquefied natural gas export plants are built in the province or not.
“But we know you can never get supply and demand to match up perfectly, so we know we’ll be some years short and some years long, and we have got a good capability to optimize that, so we think … particularly in a carbon-constrained world, there’s a long-term benefit for low-cost, low-[greenhouse gas], reliable, dependable, firm power.”
Site C would add around 10% to the province’s overall annual electricity output of 60,000 gigawatt hours.
BC Hydro claims the cost for Site C power will be between $58 and $61 per megawatt hour, but that’s a cost levelized over 70 years. Actual costs in a given year could be much higher.
Power can be bought in the North American market for less than half that range.
Hydro estimates that Site C will result in ratepayers paying an average of $650 million less each year over the first 50 years of the dam’s operation compared with a power portfolio generated by independent power producers or natural gas.
O’Riley added that with interest rates so low, it’s a good time to invest in major power infrastructure projects like Site C.
As to the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Hydro’s power export prospects in America, Mike MacDougall, Powerex’s director of trade policy, said in an email that the changes will have little effect on Hydro’s trade with U.S. markets because they predominantly affect market-clearing prices during higher-priced hours and won’t significantly change overall market demand.
______________
That was a very good article.....Global BC...CKNW..Vancouver Sun or Province Newspaper hasn't produced that quality of truthful, accurate reporting on anything in 10 years or more...That BIV article was a refreshing read......Grant G February 17/2016
Below is a little something the Straight Goods put together on the not-needed Site C Dam boondoggle..
____________
Site C Dam Not Required, Christy Clark's Justification for the Taxpayer Funded Project Falls by the Wayside
Site C Dam Not Required, British Columbia Could Save $15 Billion Dollars
Written by Grant G
(this factual article was originally posted in January 2015)
http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.ca/2016/01/site-c-dam-not-required-british.html
Christy Clark and the BC Liberals are now saying $15 billion dollar public dollar/taxpayer funded Site C Dam project is not about LNG but about an opportunity to sell Alberta clean electricity...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/clark-urges-trudeau-to-support-bc-megaprojects-that-benefit-canada/article28631015/
That's absurd, Alberta and Alberta industry will not pay the price, Alberta is building natural gas power plants that will create more power than Site C dam.., take up almost no space and cost 1/10th of the price.....Christy Clark is,...is unfortunately economically challenged, perhaps Christy Clark needs another university or college course....
_______________
An open letter to the premier's new advisor
http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/opinion/letters/an-open-letter-to-the-premier-s-new-advisor-1.2166537________________
An open letter to the premier's new advisor
I present you a Straight Goods Special......
____________
Site C Dam Not Required, British Columbia Could Save $15 Billion Dollars
Written by Grant G
In late December/2014....A couple of weeks after Christy Clark told Bloomberg in New York that British Columbia didn`t need Site C dam for the proposed LNG industry, Christy Clark also told Bloomberg the price of Site C was going up by potentially $billions of dollars, we are looking at $10 to $15 billion dollars to build Site C...Possibly $15 billion dollars for a very tiny bite of electric power...Expensive power, power we don`t need for LNG...The one group that looked at Site C and BC Hydro`s power for the future projected growth model...They came to the conclusion the power was not required, the case not made..!
Meaning there is no need to spend $15 billion dollars we don`t have, no need to put BC Hydro over $20 billion dollars in debt($15 billion plus the $billions of debt hidden in BC Hydro`s deferral accounts), BC Hydro would have as a crown corporation almost as much debt as British Columbia had when the BC Liberals came into power in 2001...Our provincial debt in 2001, including contractual debt, crown debt stood at that time about $28 billion dollars(now it`s almost $80 billion dollars, not counting contractual debt and crown corporation debt)...And these BC Liberals want to add $15 billion dollars in more debt for power we don`t need?..
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/bc-hydro-inflates-demand-justify-site-c-dam/
Here are Christy Clark`s own words.
"LNG is our priority in British Columbia and we don’t need to do Site C in order to fuel up the LNG industry,” Clark said, adding she ran for office on a pledge to establish the sector."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-10/british-columbia-clark-optimistic-on-lng-despite-oil-rout.html
Christy Clark`s mouth says we don`t need to spend $billions of dollars that we don`t have on Site C for LNG..
And guess who else says we don`t need Site C...
____________
"The retired head of the Association of Major Power Users of BC, Dan Potts, estimates the proposed Site C Dam would lose $350 million a year for taxpayers and BC Hydro ratepayers. The 30-year pulp mill manager told media in Vancouver yesterday that the project, estimated to cost $8 Billion or more, is “fundamentally uneconomic” – based on its outmoded technology and power trading prices that are likely to remain far lower than the cost of electricity produced by Site C.
Potts made the comments at a press conference organized by the District of Hudson’s Hope – where the 80 km-long reservoir would be located – to raise concerns about Site C in advance of the federal cabinet’s ruling on the project, expected this Fall.
Potts and other speakers, including agrologists, farmers, First Nations leaders and elected officials from the region, called for the BC Utilities Commission’s oversight of the project to be restored. The independent energy watchdog was stripped by the BC Liberal Government of its usual role of reviewing a project based on issues like cost and need. In the absence of that review, Potts worries that a project which makes no economic sense may receive unjustified approval.
“This project is turning gold into lead,” said Potts.
It’s going to have a legacy of wealth
destruction…It’s going to sap the province’s ability to raise money
and borrow money, to do other things, such as infrastructure,
hospitals, schools – all the things we need to do."
_______________
So here we have experts, and he`s not alone, calling Site C a boondoggle
in the making, a very expensive boondoggle, not only will it cost much
more than $10 billion, interest payments on that debt will be $400
million per year....And it will lose on average another $350 million per
year in direct losses...
All in, this project could end up costing BC taxpayers $30 billion dollars after interest payments and operating costs...for power we don`t need.
The BC NDP should refuse to even enter our provincial legislature until Site C is taken off next summer`s starting date agenda...You see readers, friends, British Columbians, there
is time for a strong opposition to fight for British Columbia, that
time is now, before the legislature opens...How many days do politicians
need off, vacationing, sitting on their over-paid asses!
We must demand that Site C go to a non
partisan regulator, or non-partisan committee...Like the BCUC...This
project must be vetted by those who have no skin in the game, by those
not wanting to win or steal an election..
There are power generating turbines being added to BC`s Mica dam...For a
cost of $500 million dollars Mica Dam will produce extra power, the new
power generated, on top of power Mica already produces......For $500
million dollars a couple of new added turbines will produce half the
power of Site C Dam..Without flooding land, flooding farm land...Merely
adding turbines to an existing dam will create half the power of Sire C
dam...for a cost of $500 million dollars...
1/20th the cost of Site C dam ....Mica will produce half the power Site C would at 1/20th the cost..
Where is the media outrage?
Where is the media outrage?
Someone needs to haul the BC Liberals off to jail..Demand a Site C plebiscite, or referendum...
The biggest expenditure ever proposed in British Columbia with not one shred of evidence that this power is required..
It would be criminal to allow that big of an expenditure without the case being made that the power is needed..
If the NDP can`t persuade the powers at be, the courts, the new media, the internet media..
We need all hands on deck to stop this $15 billion dollar theft of public money...
It would be criminal to allow that big of an expenditure without the case being made that the power is needed..
If the NDP can`t persuade the powers at be, the courts, the new media, the internet media..
We need all hands on deck to stop this $15 billion dollar theft of public money...
We need to explore other options for power..Like this option...
Since we have, according to Christy Clark and Rich Coleman, "British
Columbia has some of the largest known natural gas reserves in the
world, more than enough for domestic use only, hundreds of years of
supply", more than we can ever use domestically.....And as of right now, and probably forever, we don`t and won`t have an LNG export industry..
What British Columbia has is tonnes of natural gas and nowhere to sell it, how about we sell it to ourselves..?
British Columbia could create a market for domestic natural gas, no need
to liquify if...And at the same time can create 800 to 1200 mega watts
of power, or more, as much power as Site C dam would produce..
We would not have to flood 30,000 acres of fertile northern
farmland...Thus that land up north would not be flooded, the land would
continue to grow food and be a carbon sinc, , meaning the non-flooded
land would absorb greenhouse gases...Absorb enough greenhouse gas to
offset the below proposal..
A proposal that would give B.C. options,
options to turn up or down the electrical output depending on the
needs, this electrical plant would only take up in total space..24 hectares of space/land required...
And here`s the most attractive part of the whole deal...For a cost of about $1.4 billion dollars we could produce as much power as Site C..
We could save over $10 billion dollars before interest charges...BC Hydro`s ratepayers would not see their bills go through the roof...
We could save over $10 billion dollars before interest charges...BC Hydro`s ratepayers would not see their bills go through the roof...
We could build the world`s cleanest,
newest, most modern most efficient natural gas electrical generating
plant in the world...At the same time greenhouse gas emissions from the
natural gas plant would be offset by not flooding 30,000 acres of
farmland..no homeowners to piss off, to buy out..no First Nations to cut
deals with, plus it gives our natural gas drillers a new market for
some of their gas, that means some royalties for the province..And
create B.C. jobs for B.C. workers.
And we will save not a few $hundred million dollars but over $10 billion dollars ...
And if someday in the future LNG exports produce bigtime revenues for
the province we can shut down this plant, maybe nuclear fusion will come
online, newer more efficient appliances, possibly domestic power
generation that could feed into the grid, like solar, tidal, geo-thermal
and who knows what other technological miracles are coming down the
pike..
Pipe dreams, no....A
win win win...BC Taxpayers win...Saving food growing farmland wins...A
new market for our gas drillers, a win for them, a win for BC`s credit
rating and a break-even win for the environment, what greenhouse gas
emissions are expelled will be offset by not flooding 30,000 acres of
farm land, maintaining the land as a carbon sinc.
BC Hydro won`t have to carry a $20
billion dollar debt, ratepayers won`t have to carry that debt on their
bi-monthy electric bills..
British Columbia could save $billions and $billions of dollars by building a copy of this..
______________
"Shepard Energy Centre is a new,
natural gas-fired power plant being built near Shepard Industrial Park
in south-east Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The project, estimated to cost
C$1.3bn, is being hailed as one of the largest projects ever undertaken
by the city of Calgary.
The facility will have a nominal plant rating of 800MW and will be the largest natural gas-fired electricity generation facility in Alberta when commissioned in 2015.
It will generate enough electricity to meet the needs of more than half of Calgary's existing power demands.
The facility will use an advanced emissions technology and will generate less than half the CO2 per megawatt than a conventional coal-fired plant. The plant will be owned and operated by Enmax Shepard, a subsidiary of Enmax Energy."
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/shepard-energy-centre/
The facility will have a nominal plant rating of 800MW and will be the largest natural gas-fired electricity generation facility in Alberta when commissioned in 2015.
It will generate enough electricity to meet the needs of more than half of Calgary's existing power demands.
The facility will use an advanced emissions technology and will generate less than half the CO2 per megawatt than a conventional coal-fired plant. The plant will be owned and operated by Enmax Shepard, a subsidiary of Enmax Energy."
Enmax Energy's Calgary plant features
Important features of the plant include natural gas compression, auxiliary boilers and a wet surface condenser and cooling tower. Heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) will be partially enclosed, while the steam turbine generator (STG) and gas turbine generators (GTGs) will be fully enclosed. The project also has provisions for future carbon dioxide capture.http://www.power-technology.com/projects/shepard-energy-centre/
________________
We have time, Major Site C dam construction has not started
Plus there are many lawsuits pending..
I personally asked John Horgan and the NDP party to pay for and
commission a non-partisan study exploring the options I highlighted
above, if the BC Liberals can prove we need much more power in the
future and Site C is the only viable option, so be it, if the BC
Liberals have complete faith and confidence they shouldn`t fear a
non-partisan committee to review in depth Site C, the costs, the
ramifications and other options.
We may not even need the natural gas power plant, but if we need power, this is the route to go..
We may not even need the natural gas power plant, but if we need power, this is the route to go..
However, the time has come for the opposition NDP to step up to the plate, the BC Liberal`s clean energy act is gone, out the window, each
proposed large LNG plant would add near 9 million tonnes of greenhouse
gas emissions to our provincial airshed each year...This natural gas
electrical plant would add about 1/10th of that total...BC`s clean
energy act is null n void with an LNG industry..
Christy Clark and the BC Liberals have been talking the talk, Christy Clark was blathering in public how "BC`s LNG would clean China`s airshed and make the world`s air cleaner"..
If that is true, if it is good enough for China than a natural gas electrical plant must be good enough for British Columbia too.
If that is true, if it is good enough for China than a natural gas electrical plant must be good enough for British Columbia too.
We as a province could even buy carbon offsets, $100 million dollars
worth of carbon offsets per year and we would still be ahead of the Site
C cost by $billions and $billions of dollars..We could buy offsets of
that amount for 30 years and only spend $3 billion dollars... Add in the
cost of a natural gas electrical plant of $1.3 billion to even as high
as $2 billion dollars, add both amounts together ....$5 billion
dollars...And we wouldn`t have to buy carbon offsets if we didn`t need
to....As stated above...We would not be flooding 30,000 acres of carbon
absorbing farmland...
We can`t wait until the spring session of the legislature starts to begin this battle..
Building a natural gas electrical plant(if we need the power) is a win win...
BC jobs, BC workers..A electrical generating plant using B.C. natural gas, drilled by B.C. natural gas well drillers, piped through B.C. pipeline, power generated flowing to B.C. homes at a fraction of the cost of a Site C dam...Thus saving the province, saving B.C. Hydro $billions of dollars...Saving ratepayers even $billions more, money that will flow into our economy rather than to New York Bond Buying hedge funds..
Building a natural gas electrical plant(if we need the power) is a win win...
BC jobs, BC workers..A electrical generating plant using B.C. natural gas, drilled by B.C. natural gas well drillers, piped through B.C. pipeline, power generated flowing to B.C. homes at a fraction of the cost of a Site C dam...Thus saving the province, saving B.C. Hydro $billions of dollars...Saving ratepayers even $billions more, money that will flow into our economy rather than to New York Bond Buying hedge funds..
A win win win...
We need the media to get onside with
this plan...We need the BC NDP making wave after wave...Refusing to sit
in our legislature until all these $billion dollar plus saving options
are explored thoroughly by non-partisan entities with no skin in the
game..
We need The Straight Goods....We need leadership, we need a robust opposition...
Who knows what energy efficiencies lie ahead in the future..A $1.3 to $2
billion dollar natural gas electrical generating plant can easily be
decommissioned...A $15 billion dollar dam, not so much..
Food security....Saving ever declining farmland stocks...Not having to
flood 30,000 acres...Not having to buy out home-owners, northern
businesses, not having to fight First Nations in the Peace region..
The non-flooded land will grow food and absorb carbon...B.C. workers to
build a natural gas power plant, giving our drillers another market for
our excess gas..
Everybody wins, taxpayers, ratepayers, northern homesteaders, First Nations, the environment, our credit rating..
Everybody wins....
The Straight Goods
Cheers Eyes Wide Open
