Category Archives: Energy and Resources

Canada Eyes 9 Billion Cubic ft/day of Natural Gas Exports to Asian Market, Tokyo Conference Hears

September 20, 2012Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gasfracking, LNG, Oil and gasCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from CBC.ca on plans promoted at an energy conference in Tokyo this week for Canada to export up to 9 Billion cubic ft/day of natural gas to Asian markets. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver traveled to Asia this week to build support for Canadian gas exports. (Sept. 20, 2012)

Canada could some day export nine billion cubic feet per day of liquefied natural gas to Asia through five proposed plants on the West Coast, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told a Japanese audience this week.

Those major energy projects come with little of the opposition from politicians and native groups that threaten the proposed Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline.

In a speech to the Liquefied Natural Gas Producer-Consumer Conference in Tokyo this week, Oliver trumpeted Canada’s status as a rising “global energy leader.”

“[Canada is] already the third-largest producer of natural gas in the world,” Oliver told an audience that included Japan’s Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Yukio Edano.

Oliver is visiting Japan and South Korea on a mission to drum up business for Canada’s fledgling liquefied natural gas (LNG)industry and is travelling with business executives from AltaGas, Encana, TransCanada Corporation, Shell Canada and Nexen.

There is a global race to get LNG into the Asian market because demand — and therefore prices — are considerably higher there than in North America. In May of this year, its price was 10 times higher on the Asian market.

Adding five new LNG plants represents tens of billions of dollars in potential industrial development on B.C.’s north coast.

One plant is planned for Prince Rupert. Four would be in Kitimat, which is also the proposed terminus for Enbridge’s Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline. Two of the LNG projects in Kitimat already have National Energy Board-approved export licences.

By comparison, Gateway is a $6-billion project.

So, why all the fuss over Northern Gateway, which is tiny in comparison to all the LNG projects?

The difference is in the product each project brings to market.

Environment and Economic Arguments

“LNG is non-toxic, odourless, non-corrosive and less dense than water. It is a stable, low risk fuel. If it spills, LNG will warm, rise and dissipate,” said Rich Coleman, B.C.’s energy minister, in an interview.

“The risk to the natural environment is greater with [oilsands] bitumen than it is with natural gas,” said John Horgan, the B.C. NDP’s energy critic.

B.C. politicians of all stripes also see enormous economic potential in LNG.

Natural gas is a mature industry in B.C. and a major natural resource for the province. Horgan and Coleman both foresee jobs being created and royalty revenues pouring in, with the added bonus of minimal ecological hazard with LNG.

“No reward, high risk with one. And more reward, less risk with the other,” Horgan said.

B.C. native groups are also much less skeptical of LNG compared to oilsands projects.

The Haisla First Nation in Kitimat is equal partners in one of the NEB-approved projects and landlords for the other.

“It was one of our requests to Joe Oliver himself to actually start supporting natural gas at the higher levels and over in Asia. So we actually appreciate this initiative,” said Haisla Chief Councillor Ellis Ross.

The Haisla story, when it comes to natural gas, is similar to the rest of the province’s: they know the product, they’ve had experience with it, they’ve weighed the risks and benefits and they believe natural gas is the way to go.

“The safety record of natural gas overall over the last 30, 40 years is actually in direct contrast to the safety record of the crude oil industry,” argues Ross.

He adds that in the case of a spill, natural gas would evaporate into the air.

“Crude oil or diluant or bitumen stays in the environment for … I think the jury’s out on how long that actually crude oil or bitumen stays in the environment,” he said.

Read original story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/19/pol-natural-gas-exports-asia.html

Haisla First Nation Sign Deal with BC Government to Fast-Track LNG Plant in Kitimat

September 20, 2012Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gasfracking, LNG, Oil and gasCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from CBC.ca on the deal recently signed by the Haisla First Nation of Kitimat with the BC Government to fast-track a proposed Liquified Natural Gas plant in the Douglas Channel near their community. The gas would largely come from “fracking” operations in northeast BC and would be converted to liquid in order to be shipped by tanker to new markets in Asia. (Sept. 14, 2012)

The B.C. government has signed an agreement with the Haisla Nation to help fast-track another major liquefied natural gas (LNG) port facility near Kitimat.

The deal allows the Haisla to either lease or buy 700 hectares of land on the west side of the Douglas Channel in the areas around Haisla Reserve #6 and to work independently with the industry to develop a LNG marine export terminal on the site.

“If we are able to do this, the Haisla people will benefit, as will all British Columbians and Canadians,” said Ellis Ross, the Chief Councillor of the Haisla Nation.

The agreement comes as the B.C. government moves to slash spending to make up for a $1-billion budget deficit brought on by plunging North American natural gas prices.

But in Asia, natural gas fetches four to five times more than it does on the North American market, and that’s why the government is aiming to have three LNG export operations up and running by 2020, according to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Ida Chong.

“Currently British Columbia can only sell its natural gas on the North American market where there is ample supply and the commodity price is low, but by opening up new Asian markets where there is greater demand, British Columbian natural gas producers will be able to get up to four times the value,” said Chong.

The terminals would allow the province to export natural gas to emerging Asian markets, particularly Japan, China, South Korea, and India. Already two terminals have received export licences from the National Energy Board – Kitimat LNG and BC LNG Douglas Channel.

Spectra Energy and BG Group also announced plans Monday to build a LNG pipeline across northern B.C.

Read original story and watch video of the announcement: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/14/bc-natural-gas-haisla.html

Fracking Wastewater Used in Ohio Full of Radium

September 20, 2012Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, Water and Hydrocarbonsfracking, Health and Environment, Oil and gasCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Columbus Dispatch on the discovery of radiation in water trucked from the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania to Ohio for hydraulic fracturing operations. (Sept. 3, 2012)

Millions of barrels of wastewater trucked into Ohio from shale-gas wells in Pennsylvania might be highly radioactive, according to a government study.

Radium in one sample of Marcellus shale wastewater, also called brine, that Pennsylvania officials collected in 2009 was 3,609 times more radioactive than a federal safety limit for drinking water. It was 300 times higher than a Nuclear Regulatory Commission limit for industrial discharges to water.

The December 2011 study, compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey, also found that the median levels of radium in brine from Marcellus shale wells was more than three times higher than brine collected from conventional oil and gas wells.

“These are very, very high concentrations of radium compared to other oil and gas brines,” said Mark Engle, a U.S. Geological Survey research geologist and co-author of the report.

State law bans radioactive shale-well sand and sludge from Ohio landfills. However, brine can be sent down any of Ohio’s 171 active disposal wells regardless of how much radium it contains. Michael Snee, the Ohio Department of Health’s radiation-protection chief, said that’s the safest place for brine.“Injection wells are almost the perfect solution for that disposal issue,” Snee said.

However, environmental advocates say the Geological Survey’s report intensifies their fears of surface spills and leaks to groundwater.

“It’s an alarm bell in the night that we better get serious about testing the material in the Utica shale right here in Ohio,” said Jack Shaner, an Ohio Environmental Council lobbyist.

Shaner and others said the study shows that state officials should look at what’s bubbling out of Ohio’s shale wells.

Radiation is yet another wrinkle in the ongoing debate over “fracking,” a process that sends millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals down wells to shatter shale and free trapped oil and gas. Thousands of Marcellus shale wells have been drilled in Pennsylvania. Of the 12.2 million barrels of brine injected into Ohio disposal wells last year, 53 percent came from Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Audio: Damien Gillis Discusses ‘Fractured Land’ Doc on SFU Radio

September 19, 2012Energy and Resources, Fracking, Hydropower, Oil&GasAudio, fracking, Oil and gas, Site C DamCommon Sense Canadian

Damien Gillis discusses the forthcoming film Fractured Land with SFU Radio’s David Swanson, along with a recent journey across northern BC to document a number of interconnected industrial projects. The film, which Gillis has been co-directing for the past year and a half with Vancouver-based filmmaker Fiona Rayher, is the story of the industrialization of northern BC told through the eyes of a young indigenous law student, Caleb Behn. It examines everything from controversial hyrdraulic fracturing for natural gas, mining and the proposed Site C Dam – all in Caleb’s traditional territory – as well as plans to pipe gas across BC and convert it to liquid to ship it to new Asian markets through the port town of Kitimat. (8 min – broadcast Sept. 17)

Watch for an upcoming “crowd-funding” campaign to generate grassroots support for Fractured Land.

BC Liberals Shift Pain of Falling Gas Revenues Onto Public Sector Workers

September 15, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, Politics, Western Canadafracking, Oil and gas, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this editorial from Vancouver Sun columnist Craig McInnes commenting on the BC Liberal response to budgetary drain of plummeting natural gas prices, unveiled by new Energy Minister Mike De Jong this week. (Sept. 13, 2012)

The biggest issue, however, is that the budget is suffering from gas pains, or more precisely, the foul effect of the continuing decline in the price of natural gas. The low price means the province is looking at a $1.1-billion decline in the revenue it expected from natural gas over this year and the next two.

The decline this year has blown a $241-million hole in this year’s budget that de Jong says will now be “managed” by lining up the usual suspects. There will be a clampdown on travel and other so-called discretionary spending; a freeze on management salaries in government, crown corporations, colleges, universities and health authorities and a hiring freeze in government.

In all, fairly routine measures taken by governments with underperforming revenues. In other circumstances, the final announcement — that the bargaining mandate for negotiations with public servants is being given another look — might be considered just as routine, but not in an election year with an unpopular government in a desperate search for a winning issue against a party that is naturally aligned with unions.

On the day when members of the B.C. Government and Service Employees union were finalizing a ban on overtime as an escalation of their job action, de Jong said in his best tough-love manner, that while the government wants to show how much it values public servants, it can’t do it in the form of a big raise.

The government had been offering 3.5 per cent over two years but took that offer off the table when the BCGEU held its first job actions.

The union, which hasn’t had an increase in more than three years, was asking for 3.5 per cent in one year with cost of living adjustment in the second.

The premier has already put the union’s demands in the context of positioning the Liberals for the provincial election in May.

“A lot of middle-class families are struggling to make ends meet,” Clark said on a video released in June.

“And I want to be sure that the wages and benefits for unionized government employees aren’t out of step with people in the private sector.”

De Jong continued in that vein, arguing that one of the things he hopes differentiates the Liberals and the NDP is their willingness to make the tough decisions needed to keep the province’s finances on track.

US Boom in Oil Production Threatens Market for Canadian Tar Sands

September 15, 2012Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Tar SandsAlberta Tar Sands, Oil and gasCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from The Globe and Mail on a boom in US domestic oil production that threatens to shake the economic foundation of Canada’s Tar Sands. (Sept. 11, 2012)

A torrent of oil pumped from new wells across the U.S. is setting in motion a decade of dramatic change that promises to wean the country off OPEC, and threatens the growth of energy imports from Canada.

The U.S. is now staring at an energy future awash with its own crude, with far-reaching consequences for Canada’s oil sands, the U.S. economy and global geopolitics. This massive shift has been sparked by changing political sentiment and technological advances that have allowed crude to be tapped in new places – from North Dakota to Oklahoma, Colorado, Michigan, and even Florida.

The United States, according to new data released Monday by Bentek, a U.S. energy analysis firm, will see its oil production rise nearly five million barrels a day, or 74 per cent, in the next decade.

In that time, reliance on countries outside Canada will largely disappear. The U.S. today imports 45 per cent of its petroleum, half from OPEC countries. But by 2022, Bentek projects, only a million barrels per day will be delivered to U.S. shores by tanker – down from 6.7 million in 2011 and just 5 per cent of total demand – and at least some of those won’t come from OPEC, but from countries like Mexico and Brazil.

The coming change, according to Bentek, is startling: By 2016, the U.S. will surpass its 1970 oil production peak of 9.6 million barrels a day; by 2022, it will have leapt to 11.6 million barrels a day.

For Canada, the news is both good and grim: Canadian crude, flowing by pipeline, will continue to be a substantial source of U.S. energy. But growth in Canadian exports south of the border could face a wall in 2018, when the combination of U.S. oil output and pipeline constraints raise the possibility for new “Canadian production to get pushed out,” said Jodi Quinnell, one of the Bentek report authors. “What comes in to the U.S. will slow and basically remain flat from 2018 to 2025.”

That projection suggests the coming half-decade will see Canada, and its fast-growing oil sands, struggle against the tide of U.S. oil. It also substantially raises the stakes for a country in the midst of two contentious applications to carry Canadian crude to the British Columbia coast for export to Pacific markets. It should “cause us to, even more than we are today, realize the importance of creating additional channels to the world,” said Wayne Chodzicki, the Calgary-based global head of oil and gas for consulting firm KPMG.

Youth More Likely to Oppose Enbridge Pipeline: New Survey

September 15, 2012Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gasCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from The Prince George Citizen on a new survey that suggests younger generations are significantly more likely to oppose the proposed Enbridge pipeline than other British Columbians. (Sept. 10, 2012)

Young British Columbians are significantly more likely to oppose the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline than the rest of the population, according to a survey by Abacus Data.

According to data from a survey conducted last month, just one per cent of millennials — which Abacus defines as people born between 1980 and 2000 — strongly support the plan by Calgary-based Enbridge to build a heavy oil pipeline from Alberta’s oilsands to Kitimat. An additional seven per cent from the demographic somewhat support the plan.

Among respondents of all ages in B.C., eight per cent of people strongly support the $6 billion project and 20 per cent somewhat support it.

“[Millennials] were much more likely to strongly oppose the pipeline: almost half, 46 per cent said they strongly opposed and less than one per cent said they strongly supported the pipeline, indicating a trend among millennials, and particularly those living in British Columbia, away from support for the pipeline,” Abacus social media co-ordinator Jamie Morrison wrote on the company’s website.

The trend wasn’t limited only to B.C. Abacus found just six per cent of millennials nationwide strongly support the pipeline, compared with 11 per cent of the overall population. Addtionally, 14 per cent of Canadian millennials somewhat supported the megaproject, compared with 22 per cent of the rest of the survey sample.

Farewell to Peter Lougheed – A Real Common Sense Canadian

September 15, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Politics, Tar Sands, Western CanadaAlberta Tar Sands, Oil and gas, PoliticsRafe Mair

If you skipped A20 of Friday’s Province or B3 of the Sun, you would not know that Former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed had died. Such are priorities of Postmedia.

I first met him at a Western Premier’s Conference, in 1976, at dinner. It was not one of my better moments. Bll Bennett cracked a one-liner just as I was taking a drink of wine and, as has happened to all of us with milk when we were kids, I shot the wine out of my nostrils all over the tablecloth. Bennett quickly said, “You can dress up these Kamloops guys but it doesn’t do any good.”

As minister responsible for constitutional affairs, I sat in too many conferences to count with Lougheed, present and a big force.

One amusing moment occurred at the Western Ministers Conference in Prince George, in 1979, I think it was.

During an intervention by Manitoba Premier Sterling Lyon he said, “As the Duke of Marlborough said, ‘publish and be damned.'” As is often my wont, I blurted out, “it was the Duke of Wellington.” This lese majesty brought silence for a second or so, then Premier Bennett said, “Some ministers can be replaced.” Hereupon Lougheed said, “Bill, I’ll trade you three of mine for Rafe.” Calm was restored!

Peter Lougheed was known as a stout defender of Alberta’s sole right to its natural resources. This, perhaps one might say obstinance, had deep historical significance.

Alberta had not come into Confederation as a political entity as had all the others, but by a federal division of federal crown land in 1905 that created Saskatchewan and Alberta. They did not, then, have control over their natural resources until they were ceded to them in 1930. After that, it was part of the Alberta psyche to demonstrate that control at every appropriate moment. At every First Minister’s Conference dealing with the patriation of the Constitution, Loughheed would make it plain that any attempt, however slight, to deal with Alberta’s resources would mean Alberta opposition.

Lougheed had reason to suspect the feds as evidenced by Pierre Trudeau’s Energy Program of 1980, where the feds did clearly interfere with Alberta (and BC) natural resources. Premier Lougheed responded by cutting back oil production. This head to head confrontation continued until 1984 when Prime Minister Mulroney repealed the program. It was the time Albertans had bumper stickers reading “Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark.”

It was a more progressive development of the Tar Sands that happened on Lougheed’s watch. What a pity his policy wasn’t continued, for he stood squarely for this project to be developed by Canadian refineries to be used for Canadian needs. Had his policies been followed, there would be no discussion of pipelines in BC nor tankers on our coast. Lougheed argued this point to his last days, calling for local refineries – and moderation in developing the resource.

It was he who created the “rainy day” fund putting oil revenues away for moment when the revenues weren’t there and Albertans would need some extra money.

British Columbia scarcely agreed with Lougheed – especially on constitutional issues – but always respected him and listened.

Peter Lougheed demonstrated his ongoing influence in the recent Alberta election when with a week to go, he endorsed Premier Alison Redford. This move was the kiss of death for the Wildrose Party.

The word “great” is much abused and misused but it belongs properly on Peter Lougheed – he was truly a great Albertan, great Canadian and great man. I feel highly privileged to have known him and witnessed his contributions to his province and his country.

Rafe on ‘Corporate Citizenship’ and Changing Views

September 12, 2012Energy and Resources, Mining, Oil&GasMining, Oil and gas, rafe mairRafe Mair

Sometimes a good dose of introspection is good for the soul…and as a test of whatever principles you now espouse.

I’m always amused when someone accuses me me of “inconsistency”, which reminds me of Emerson’s aphorism, “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.

It remains, obviously, to decide if my changes in position are foolish.

I admit to being a contrarian. Seeing that, and recognizing that it might be an interesting experiment, Premier Bill Bennett made me Environment Minister in 1978. It was only a year as I was moved up to Health the next shuffle but that time gave me much pause for reflection and I became convinced that Industry would only care about the environment if they were forced to or if, somehow, it made them money. As my associate Damien Gillis often points out, if corporations did things that prevented them from paying dividends or putting the bottom line first, it was tantamount to a breach of fiduciary duty.

This is true. The only thing a company is supposed to do is make a profit.

Companies often take pride in employing people as if that was an act of good citizenship, not for the purposes of profiting from employees’ labours.There is, of course, nothing wrong with companies employing people – what’s wrong is the notion that they do this out of some charitable gesture, motivated by altruistic philosophy.

They take pride in spending philanthropically although, as Jimmy Pattison has shown around the province, that is seldom done anonymously. Moreover donations are tax deductible.

Often the donation interferes with the plans in place – let me explain.

Say a company wants to place an MRI scanner in a certain hospital. The Health Ministry will have a schedule for placing these machines and the corporation’s choice is not at the top of the list. The donation now, in effect, deprives another hospital of the MRI it had reason to expect was theirs. Now, if the corporation were to say, “I understand that hospital X is in line for an MRI, I will build it for them,” that would be quite a different thing.

There’s another important factor – MRI’s cost a fortune to run. If the corporation stays in the lineup, the government will have made provision for the cost. When it jumps the queue, the Health budget is distorted.

I have nothing but praise for philanthropy when it is done in cooperation with the targeted donee and the donor is not seeking to gain business from the publicity and is not seeking a tax break.

My only point is that one makes a serious mistake in thinking that donations from corporations are not intended to increase profits.

Back to the environment. In Tuesday’s Sun was a headlined story of how Teck Resources has been polluting the Columbia River for decades and doesn’t deny the story but simply denies the the damages claimed. This candid admission came only after they were sued.

In all events, my short stint as Minister of Environment confirmed what I long had suspected – the real environment department of a company is its public relations budget and that there were no exceptions to that rule.

British Columbians now face serious environmental problems on many fronts – mines, rivers, farm land, fish farms, pipelines and tankers to name a few. And here’s the rub – the corporations are under no compulsion to behave appropriately and, in fact, the onus is not on them to demonstrate that their venture is environmentally sound; no, it’s private citizens and organizations they form that bear that onus!

The Precautionary Principle places to onus of proof on the developer, not the public.

In fact, the onus should not just be on the developer. Counsel for the public should be the governments, but they are, when so-called “free enterprise” parties rule, virtually always bought and paid for and wind up supporting the developer and bad-mouthing environmentalist groups. It’s interesting to note that Ministers accuse environmental groups as being bankrolled by foreign money as they help foreign companies such as Chinese government-owned corporations and companies like General Electric gobble up our resources, pollute like hell then take their money and run.

(Incidentally, The Common Sense Canadian has no foreign “sugar daddies” and would like it known that we would love some!)

Does all this mean that I’m a neo-communist – or even a socialist?

Not at all. I believe in the marketplace, if only because nothing else works as well. I say this recognizing that “socialist” countries are not that at all – they just demand that companies pay their fair share of taxes and obey social and environmental rules. I don’t want public ownership, other than natural monopolies, but strong laws and good policemen.

That is what I mean when I call myself an environmentalist.

In Canada as a whole and in British Columbia we have government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.

That’s what we must change if we ever wish, as Lincoln actually said, to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

BC NDP Must Come Clean on its Full Energy Policy

September 9, 2012Energy and Resources, Hydropower, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, WATER, Water and HydrocarbonsBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, KinderMorgan, LNG, Oil and gas, Site C Dam, Water and EnergyRafe Mair

The NDP are getting a free ride – at least they certainly are on the energy file.

I must ask again: Why are they not condemning the proposed twinning of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Vancouver? All the arguments that prevail against the Enbridge line apply to Kinder Morgan, so to say that you’re waiting for the Kinder Morgan applicationto be filed is a flimsy excuse which waters down their general position on energy.

Speaking of a program, just what is the NDP energy policy? We’d better find out soon or it will be too late.

Some questions.

The NDP is wholly supportive of multiple liquified natural gas (LNG) plants in Kitimat, so far as can be told without any real consultation with the public on either the plant itself or the pipeline that would cross the same mountains and forests that Enbridge does.

My feeling is that the NDP don’t want to appear to be against everything. Yet the party was much opposed to an LNG plant on Texada Island a few years ago, mainly on dangers it posed. There are not too many examples of plant failure in the past but when they do have one, the destruction of property and human life is extensive.

I don’t say that this project ought to be banned – I just ask when the public process took place. When was the public, including First Nations, consulted on both the need for such a plant and, if passed, what were the technical and environmental concerns, and, again, where was the public process?

John Horgan, the NDP Energy Critic, seems to favour, without reservations, the obtaining of natural gas through the process now called “fracking”, which is a technique whereby natural gas, trapped in shale beds within the earth’s crust is “mined” by forcing it out by the use of huge quantities of water and chemicals. British Columbia has lots of this natural gas and there’s a sort of “gold rush” mentality amongst those who want to get into the act.

There are huge environmental questions, not least of which is the chemical-laden water getting into the domestic water supply and ecosystems. Moreover, where is the water being taken from?

There are also very real worries for the security of the land under which the “fracking” takes place, namely earthquakes being caused by the controversial practice.

The concerns here are not just picky little matters brought up by traditional boo birds but very real worries.

There is a very big economic question involved: BC and Alberta are not the only places in the world where there are lots of potential fracking areas.

With a huge overabundance of natural gas available, can BC compete? Where are the markets? China, which itself has huge trapped natural gas resources?

Normally one might say, that’s the concern of the companies, not us.

But we know that’s not necessarily so, for corporations discount a good part of the downsides by expecting government bailouts if big trouble comes, for the same reason the US government bailed out the stockbrokers – the cost of not bailing out sinking corporate ships was higher than the subsidies. Moreover, the public is a shareholder in this resource and is receiving reduced dividends from it at these historically low market prices.

There is a further question that has been raised but not dealt with, either by the government or the opposition – why are we devoting energy from water resources, that belong to the public to create energy which then will be used by corporations to make new energy?

The nature of BC Hydro, since W.A.C. Bennett’s days, was to create cheap power for both the public and industry but not to be a partner in the industry, thus liable to losses concerned.

The proposed Site “C” Dam is not needed for domestic energy supply – as our resident economist Erik Andersen has amply demonstrated – but day by day looks more like a scheme to subsidize the untested abilities of fracking companies to do so without environmental damage, in questionable markets. And if not for fracking, then to subsidize comparably questionable new mining operations in northern BC – in any event, the power from Site “C” is patently not for the public that would be paying some $10 Billion to build it.

These are some of many questions being raised by everyone accept the Liberals, who are joined at the hip to industry, and the NDP who are not.

It’s bad enough to have a government of a gaggle of nincompoops, but without an Opposition to ask serious and penetrating questions because they fear the voters won’t like it is a potential tragedy which may well lead to an environmental and fiscal mess not only caused by an incompetent government but an incompetent Opposition as well.