Category Archives: WATER

Site C Dam story changes again - now it's about powering California

Site C Dam story changes again – now it’s about powering California

Hydropower, WATER
Share

Site C Dam story changes again - now it's about powering California

The $10 Billion proposed Site C Dam could provide power for export to California, BC Hydro representatives told the Joint Review Panel examining the project on the final day of public hearings, last week in Fort St. John.

A last-minute change to the story that keeps on changing, the new rationale for the dam confirmed the suspicions of some the hearings’ observers. “We thought we didn’t need the energy,” said the Peace Valley Environment Association’s Andrea Morison, “but we hadn’t heard from Hydro or any other credible source for a long time that it was for the U.S., and we just found out it was for California.”

Site C’s ever-evolving rationale

Over the past 3 decades, British Columbians have been given a bunch of different reasons for flooding 50,000 acres of the beautiful, agriculturally productive Peace River Valley. In the beginning, we were told that Site C was urgently needed to power “450,000 homes” – lest we face brown-outs from a severe energy shortage (we’ve never even come close).

Then, when it became apparent that BC now faces a domestic power surplus for years to come, we heard on a number of occasions from Premier Christy Clark that Site C was instead required for powering the enormously energy-intensive liquefied natural gas (LNG) process.

Finally, in what came off as a weak, “Hail Mary” attempt to justify the dam before an increasingly skeptical review panel, BC Hydro offered the following explanation:

[quote]Our hydro capacity, including the existing capacity we have, and including Site C, is perfectly suited to helping California…We see that as a big opportunity.[/quote]

California dreamin’

The revelation came as panel chairman Harry Swain raised the issue of California’s increased need for power amid drought conditions currently affecting the state’s hydro dams.

“Our trading folks are working very hard to try to find a way for us to help,” replied Chris O’Riley, Hydro’s executive vice-president overseeing generation in the province.

On one level, this makes perfect sense. Of all the reasons for building Site C, powering BC’s own homes and businesses is not one of them.

We know this because in 2012, BC exported a surplus of 5,800 gigawatt hours of power – roughly 10% of our total provincial demand. That figure more than doubled from the previous year. We’re already awash in private power we didn’t need in the first place but are forced to pay over a billion dollars a year for. On top of that, despite population increases, our demand has flatlined – BC uses roughly the same amount of electricity today as it did a decade ago.

That’s how you go from allegedly needing this power for 450,000 homes to having such an excess of it that the only possible justification for flooding the Peace Valley is selling power to California!

Rising costs drive conservation

This flatlining consumption undermines Hydro’s oft-repeated assumption that there is a direct and linear correlation between population growth and energy demand. The record suggests that’s simply not the case.

And it’s not just true in BC. According to a recent Associated Press story, the same trend can be observed south of the border – ostensibly our new market for power from Site C:

[quote]The average amount of electricity consumed in U.S. homes has fallen to levels last seen more than a decade ago, back when the smartest device in people’s pockets was a Palm pilot and anyone talking about a tablet was probably an archaeologist or a preacher. [/quote]

The combination of increased energy efficiency, conscious conservation efforts like Hydro’s Powersmart program, and higher power bills has kept consumption in check on either side of the 49th parallel.

But this should come as no surprise. Throughout its history, BC Hydro has chronically and significantly overestimated future demand – typically by 10-20% – a proud heritage that continues to this day.

Part of the issue is the way Hydro’s model for future energy demand in BC fails to take into account the effect of skyrocketing power bills for British Columbians – 28% over the next five years. And that’s without Site C, which Hydro pegs at an unbelievably low cost of $8 Billion. According to the World Bank, the average cost overrun for dams around the world is 27%. And this is the BC Liberals we’re talking about here – you know, the gang that can’t build a capital project for less than double the sticker price (see stadium roof, convention centre, Northwest Transmission Line, Port Mann Bridge).

Throw the cost of Site C on top of Hydro’s well over $20 Billion in total debt, plus over $50 Billion in high-priced contractual obligations and we can expect those bills to continue their steady climb. Just like high gas prices convince people to trade their SUVs for Corollas, so, apparently, do rate increases incentivize electricity conservation. But you won’t hear that kind of common sense from BC Hydro.

Powerex: a $750 million lesson

Before BC spends – let’s call it $10 Billion – of taxpayers’ money to build a dam which likely won’t produce one watt of energy until the middle of the next decade, let us pause for a moment to reflect on the utility’s last big foray into the California market: the scandalous energy crisis of the early 2000’s.

If we were deciding whether or not to build Site C based on typical spot market prices for power south of the border today, it would never happen – they’ve been far too low in recent years to make a profit off Site C’s costly power. In fact, this strategy would prove a big money loser, as our present experience dumping high-priced private power on the market today is teaching us.

Now, if the theory is that persistent drought conditions will mean higher electricity prices in California 10 years from now, well, that’s a $10 Billion gamble – one fraught with risk, which the Powerex debacle reminds us. Earlier this year, British Columbians were hit with a $750 million settlement relating to fraudulent power trading by Hydro’s export arm the last time the California market went into overdrive.

Thus, the dream of big exports to to California does not make for a sound foundation upon which to build Site C.

Hydro’s credibility gap

More than anything, Hydro’s continual flip-flopping on Site C’s need and its inability to accurately predict the future leave it with no credibility in the eyes of the public – and, let’s hope, the panel deciding the project’s future.

It’s time to pull the plug on Site C Dam, once and for all.

Share
Peace Valley extraordinary farmland could feed million people-Site C Dam

Peace Valley’s “extraordinary” farmland could feed a million people, agrologists tell Site C Dam review

Farmland and Food Security, Food, Hydropower, WATER
Share
Peace Valley extraordinary farmland could feed million people-Site C Dam
The Peace River Valley is one of Canada’s most fertile regions (Damien Gillis)

A pair of highly-respected agricultural experts made a compelling case this week for sparing some of BC’s best farmland from a proposed dam on the Peace River. Together, veteran agrologist Wendy Holm and soil scientist Evelyn Wolterson argued that BC Hydro’s error-ridden study of the flood zone for the $10 billion proposed Site C Dam missed the unique soil and climate values that would enable this land to feed up to a million people – were the focus to shift from hydropower to farming.

Conversely, if a third dam on the Peace were built, it would create the single largest loss of land in the 40-year history of the province’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) – drowning or severely impacting over 30,000 acres of largely exceptional land.

On Tuesday, the Joint Review Panel investigating Site C  heard from Holm, a highly-decorated former President of the BC Institute of Agrologists with 40 years’ experience in the field, and agrologist and farming consultant Evelyn Wolterson – both presenting their findings on behalf of the Peace Valley Environment Association and BC Women’s Institue.

“The Peace River Valley has extraordinarily high value for agriculture,” Wolterson told the panel from the outset.

[quote]It is our opinion that the public interest is better served [by] agriculture and other uses for this valley, rather than a hundred years of power production…Power has other alternatives; agriculture doesn’t.[/quote]

Over 30,000 acres to be flooded or impacted

Site C Dam location
Location of the proposed Site C Dam (Damien Gillis)

In all, the project would impact 31,528 acres of class 1-7 farmland, roughly half of which lies “within the project’s flood, stability and landslide-generated wave impact lines,” notes Holm’s report to the panel. The other half will be permanently lost beneath the reservoir and access roads. Of the total land impacted and compromised, over 8,300 acres  are class 1 and 2 soils – making it some the best farmland in the country.

According to Holm, Hydro ignores the half that won’t end up under water immediately but will nevertheless be heavily compromised over time and rendered largely un-farmable. Meanwhile, in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project, the crown corporation determines the loss of the other half “is insignificant, because all ‘costs’ associated with any such loss can be mitigated and/or compensated.” Holm charges that the crown corporation understates everything from the amount of land impacted, to the long-term damage from the project to the local farming economy.

And that’s just the beginning of the problems with BC Hydro’s EIS which Holm and Wolterson unearthed for the panel.

The Peace Valley’s surprisingly “extraordinary” land

The panel seemed genuinely interested to learn from Holm and Wolterson about the special properties of the valley that make it so productive agriculturally.

For starters, the Peace River’s largely east-west orientation means the valley gets more sun, thus experiencing longer growing days and seasons than other land that far north. “The best farmland in BC is in the southern valleys,” Wolterson told the panel. “The notable exception is the Peace River Valley.”

Other factors like lower wind speeds, excellent Spring moisture, and a longer frost-free period mean, counterintuitively, that “crop yield goes up as you go from the south to the north,” Wolterson explained.

[quote]These are all elements of this valley that make it absolutely unique…not only in the region but in all of British Columbia, and perhaps Western Canada.[/quote]

Even a BC Hydro representative acknowledged to the panel in an earlier presentation Tuesday, “Our assessment certainly accepts that this is highly capable land and a favourable climate.” If anything, he conceded, the climate has improved since the last major study conducted by BC Hydro 30 years ago.

Yet throughout the project proponent’s 15,000-page report, “flawed data is leading to faulty conclusions,” Wolterson asserts.

Hydro cultivates wrong idea about valley’s farmland

Peterson farm
A sampling of the diverse produce grown at the Peterson market garden in the 1980s (photo: Larry Peterson)

Both experts ticked off a long list of problems with Hydro’s methodology for the EIS. “The panel does not have in front of it reliable information on which to measure the economic loss to agriculture and the public interest,” Holm stated at the top of her presentation.

Wolterson gave several examples of BC Hydro’s flawed analysis. For instance, a higher-elevation region above the valley known as the Uplands was given roughly same growing season as a monitoring station at the Fort St. John Airport, while the dam proponent ascribed 30 fewer growing, or “crop opportunity” days to the valley itself. “There’s something wrong with that data,” Wolterson told the panel.

“What it shows here is the capability of these [valley] lands in Attachie Flat and Bear Flat are equivalent to what they are at the Fort St. John airport. I’ve worked in this community for 20 years…I know that’s not true,” Wolterson testified, offering an example of crop yields 30% higher in the valley, compared with farms closer to Fort St. John.

In some cases, the valley beats even the Lower Mainland’s farms for productivity. For instance, Larry Peterson, who ran a successful market garden there with his wife Lynda in the 1970s and 80s, would get 13.6 tonnes per acre for potatoes, compared with the average yield in the Lower Fraser Valley of only 10.2 tonnes per acre.

In broader terms, Holm emphasized:

[quote]The land to be flooded by Site C is capable of producing high-yielding fresh fruits and vegetables for over a million people.[/quote]

BC’s food security withering on the vine

“There is a misperception that there is a vast amount agricultural land that is waiting to be exploited. It’s simply not true,” Wolterson warned the review panel.

Much of the Peace Valley's best farmland is already under the Williston Reservoir, behind the WAC Bennett Dam (Damien Gillis)
Much of the Peace Valley’s best farmland was flooded in 1968 by the WAC Bennett Dam (Damien Gillis)

According to the Ministry of Agriculture’s own 2007 assessment, titled BC’s Food Self-Reliance (download here), BC grows just 48% of the food it consumes. Vegetable production per capita has fallen to half of what it was in 1970. And the problem is only getting worse, says Wolterson. “Over the last 10 some-odd years, there’s been a serious and alarming decline in agricultural land area” – driven by everything from urban encroachment, industrial projects, and declining of productivity.

The combination of a shrinking food supply and growing population has put BC on a path to serious food security challenges, both presenters emphasized.

In that sense, Site C Dam should be viewed in the context of a wide range of cumulative impacts, together whittling away BC’s food security. Issues like fracking, roads, and segmentation of farmland for other industrial projects have all made farming more difficult and dragged down productivity, says Wolterson.

Moreover, BC Hydro’s flood reserve – a land bank it has accumulated over the years, buying out farmers in preparation for a future dam (Site C has been on the books for three decades now) –  has had an “enormous”, detrimental impact on agricultural investment in the valley, giving a false impression of the productivity of the land. Hydro’s EIS and rationale for the dam leans heavily on this fiction.

Economic value of farmland underestimated

Peace corn
Cash crop: Is Hydro underestimating the economic value of farmland?

Holm’s presentation focused in part on the economic value Hydro assessed to farmland that would be lost from the dam, arguing it has made some dangerous miscalculations. With “global loss of farmland, water shortages, soil salinization, higher energy costs, transportations costs, supply chain concentration, population growth, there is no question that there is going to be intense pressure on food prices as we move into the future,” cautioned Holm.

In other words, land that is fallow and of seemingly little value today could see its economic worth – and value as a local food source – skyrocket in the future, something we may rue when we can no longer depend on truckloads of cheap tomatoes from California rolling across the border.

British Columbians currently spend 11% of household income on food, Holm noted, but that figure could rise significantly in the not-too-distant future, based on these myriad shifting factors. Viewed in that light, Hydro is recklessly lowballing lost economic value from flooded farmland, pegging it a a paltry $20 million.

The Shadow of the Dam

Holm came back to the flood reserve issue as well, suggesting that Hydro’s assumptions of the productivity and economic value of the land are erroneously based on a false dynamic that discourages farmers from working the land to its full potential.

[quote]The ‘shadow of the dam’ refers to the flood reserve that fell across the farmland in 1957. Considerable farmland was purchased by BC Hydro, farmers were told not to get too attached to their fields as Site C moved on, then off, then on again to the provincial drawing boards. Naturally, this has prejudiced farm decision-making. As a result, current land use does not reflect the agro-economic potential of the land.[/quote]

Process designed to fail the public

Audio: Why Site C Dam is a bad deal for taxpayers, environment
The proposed Site C Dam – artist’s rendering

Much like the Liberal Government did to the BC Utilities Commission –  barring the public’s independent energy watchdog from reviewing the economics and need for Site C – it has also stripped the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) of its lawful oversight of the biggest potential land removal in its history

“This independent body, which was specifically created to ensure a thorough, non-partisan assessment of large projects like Site C, is not going to be allowed to do its job,” says Peace Valley Environment Association (PVEA) Coordinator Andrea Morison. The PVEA wrote to the Joint Review Panel, suggesting it ask the ALC for details on the process that they would have undertaken in assessing Site C – despite the provincial government’s attempts to exclude it from the conversation. The panel declined the request.

And so it is that both public watchdogs designed to keep the government and Hydro in check in this very situation curiously find themselves sitting on the bench for the biggest game of their careers.

Even the public hearing process was scheduled over the holiday season and limited to the region of the dam, despite the enormous bill taxpayers around the province would foot to build it. The whole process has been anathema to public participation.

Hydro’s work “weak and meaningless”

In the ALR’s place, BC Hydro has done a predictably poor job of assessing these agricultural issues and planning for their mitigation, say Holm and Wolterson.

“BC Hydro acknowledges that the mitigation plan and the compensation program that they’ve put together…they don’t really know how much is needed; there’s no specifics in how it would be implemented; there’s no evidence of possible uptake; there’s no proof that there’s a benefit,” Wolterson said in her conclusion.

[quote]I think it’s weak and I think it’s meaningless and it gives me no confidence and I can’t see how the panel can determine if this plan is going to adequately compensate for the loss of these incredibly valuable lands.[/quote]

What’s more important: energy or food?

Arlene Boon
Arlene Boon’s family would lose its century old farm at Bear Flat to Site C

Beneath the 15,000-page reports, the political shenanigans with the review process, and all the rhetoric about economic development lies a simple truth: Last year, BC generated about 110% as much electricity as it needed, but produced, at most, 48% of the food it consumed. In other words, while we have plenty of electricity to power our homes and businesses well into the future, the same thing cannot be said about our food security.

The problem is virtually invisible to British Columbians today. Most of us have no idea we exported a net surplus of 5,840 gigawatt hours of power last year (at a loss!) – you certainly wouldn’t learn this listening to BC Hydro, which has a long history of exaggerating future demand. And as long as those trucks keeping rolling north from California and Mexico – as long as Superstore’s shelves remain stocked and Costco keeps selling giant bags of tri-coloured peppers for 5 bucks – most of us will never know how real the danger is, how foolish the choices are that our government is making today.

The fact is, the only reason we really “need” this dam, according to Premier Christy Clark herself, is to power incredibly energy-intensive liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants on the coast, her government’s one big – if not bright – idea.

So the choice we face with Site C Dam – if you can even call it a choice for BC’s marginalized citizens and First Nations – is this: Power that we don’t need…or food that we do?

Share
Yet another CNRL leak probed by Alberta regulator in Cold Lake

Yet another CNRL leak probed by Alberta regulator in Cold Lake

Energy and Resources, Tar Sands, WATER, Water and Hydrocarbons
Share
Yet another CNRL leak probed by Alberta regulator in Cold Lake
An earlier CNRL leak in Cold Lake, Alberta (Chester Dawson / Wall Street Journal)

COLD LAKE, Alta. – The Alberta Energy Regulator is investigating another leak from a Canadian Natural Resources (TSX:CNQ) bitumen well near Cold Lake.

The regulator says 27,000 litres of crude bitumen were released underground on Jan. 3 at the company’s troubled Primrose field.

But agency spokesman Darin Barter said the leak has been stopped.

“There was no release to surface,” Barter said Friday. “There’s no aquifers that have been impacted by this incident.”

Barter said the release has been definitively attributed to a failed well casing, setting this leak apart from an earlier one in the same field last summer that also remains under investigation.

In that leak, more than a million litres of bitumen has so far seeped to the surface. The spill continues, although cold weather has slowed the amount to almost nothing.

CNRL has said the earlier leak was also due to a well failure.

“We don’t necessarily share that view of the incident,” said Barter.

The regulator is investigating whether the bitumen escaped through cracks in the rock above the deposit and was driven to the surface by high-pressure steam pumped underground to soften it before being extracted. The company has been ordered to reduce the pressure of the steam it uses.

The first leak remains the subject of a $40-million cleanup effort from CNRL.

Barter said there’s no indication when the regulator’s report on that leak will be complete.

There were also bitumen leaks at the Primrose field in 2009. The regulator concluded those leaks were at least partially caused by high volumes and high pressures of steam.

Mike Hudema with Greenpeace Canada said it is “incredible” that CNRL is still allowed to continue its operations. Said Hudema in a press release:

[quote]If the Alberta government is serious about protecting Alberta’s environment, it has to pull CNRL’s approval for their Cold Lake operations. How many more spills will it take before we see real action?[/quote]

Share
$10 Billion Site C Dam: You pay, no say

$10 Billion Site C Dam: You pay, no say

Economics, Hydropower, WATER
Share

$10 Billion Site C Dam: You pay, no say

If you live in BC, it will cost you, conservatively, $10 Billion – paid through skyrocketing power bills and taxes. It will flood tens of thousands of acres of excellent farmland – sacrifices you will make entirely for the benefit of multinational oil and gas companies.

And here’s the kicker: you have no say in the matter. The environmental hearings into the proposed Site C Dam currently underway in northeast BC have utterly excluded the people who will be paying the lion’s share of the financial costs: you. No hearings in Vancouver, Victoria, or anywhere outside of the Peace Valley, of which 50,000-plus acres of quality wildlife habitat and farmland would be flooded for the project.

Debunking Site C’s myths

Let’s begin by setting aside a few popular myths, peddled by your government, often repeated by the mainstream media.

First, when you hear $7.9 Billion, remember that dams all around the world run notoriously over budget – an average of 27%, according to the World Bank. Add to that the dismal track record of cost overruns for major capital projects under the supervision of the BC Liberal Government – from the convention centre to the stadium roof to the Port Mann Bridge – and we’ll go ahead and call Site C Dam a $10 Billion project…at least.

Second, whenever you read that Site C Dam would power 450,000 homes, remember that this power is not for yours or anyone’s home or small business. And that comes straight from the horse’s mouth – BC Premier Christy Clark, that is. She has told us repeatedly that Site C is necessary to power BC’s much-vaunted, proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry.

You see, BC is totally self-sufficient in electricity now and well into the future. According to Stats BC, we exported a surplus of over 5,800 gigawatt hours last year – about 10% of our total domestic demand. That trend shows no sign of reversing for decades to come…unless, that is, we decide to power enormously energy-intensive LNG plants on the coast with subsidized public power.

If we go that route, BC Hydro has nowhere near enough power – even with Site C – as its befuddled, draft Integrated Resource Plan recently demonstrated.

These plants have been granted special permission to break the Liberals’ own climate laws and burn some gas to power the cooling of the rest of the gas into liquid – bringing massive air pollution and climate impacts. Site C would provide only enough energy for one of the larger proposed LNG plants, so it makes little sense for the beautiful Peace Valley, its environment, farmland, First Nations and citizens to make such a costly sacrifice at the altar of LNG.

$10 Billion, zero voice

For all the environmental and food security costs, the widespread opposition from local First Nations, the enormous cost to your pocket book, you get no say in the matter.

With these hearings scheduled over the holiday season and only in the north, the message from the BC Liberal government could not be clearer: They do not want your voice to be heard. Just sign the cheque, give the land and the power to someone else, and keep your mouth shut.

$10 Billion of your money for a dam you do not need: That’s Site C Dam in a nutshell.

So whether they want to or not, this BC Liberal Government needs to hear from its constituents in the Lower Mainland, the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the Interior  the coast. With a government that’s already racked up more debt – both hidden and obvious – than all its predecessors over the past century combined, the people of BC cannot afford to allow it to add another $10 Billion to their children’s Visa.

The founders of the American republic had it right: No taxation without representation. This government badly needs a refresher in that concept.

Share
Industry seeks right to release water from oilsands tailings ponds

Industry seeks right to release water from oilsands tailings ponds

Energy and Resources, Tar Sands, WATER, Water and Hydrocarbons
Share
Industry wants right to release water from oilsands tailings ponds
Syncrude tailings pond (photo: David Dodge, Pembina Institute)

EDMONTON – Oilsands producers are talking with the federal and Alberta governments about conditions under which water from the industry’s tailings ponds could be released into the environment.

Officials say releases would only involve treated water and wouldn’t happen until the end of a mine’s life.

Environmentalists are watching the discussions closely and warn that quality standards for released tailings water should be high.

“If they’d be willing to take the water and dump it in the Bow River near Calgary, then perhaps,” said Keith Stewart of Greenpeace.

Alberta has a zero discharge policy for the oilsands. No water affected by processing is allowed back into the Athabasca River and even rain that falls on developed sites must be collected and stored.

Most of that water is kept in tailings ponds.

Companies failing to meet regulations for tailings ponds

The ponds — covering 170 square kilometres with a toxic blend of hydrocarbons, silt, salts and heavy metals — have been a lingering headache for the industry. Alberta’s energy regulator has already had to relax on enforcing regulations about cleaning up the ponds after companies pleaded they would simply be unable to meet their targets.

But as the province develops new tailings regulations, there is general acknowledgment that something will have to be done with the water currently filling the ponds once contaminants have been removed and stored at the bottom of so-called end-pit lakes. Said department spokeswoman Nikki Booth in an email:

[quote](Alberta Environment) is consulting on a tailings management framework with industry and First Nations. Included in that consultation are discussions about introducing tailings water (free of the tailings) back into natural waterways at the end of a project.[/quote]

Those discussions have been occurring for some time. Documents obtained under Access to Information laws refer in the summer of 2012 to “the industry request for tailings release as a management option.”

Federal environment spokesman Mark Johnson confirmed that reference.

“A small number of oil and gas stakeholders … have expressed an interest in a science-focused dialogue with experts from Environment Canada and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Development on the environmental considerations of water management, including release of tailings ponds water by the oilsands sector.”

Industry downplays concerns

Greg Stringham of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said the only interest he’s aware of involves water in tailings ponds at the end of a mine’s life.

“We’re going to have extra water left over that needs to be treated and processed and put back into the environment in some sense. We’ve started talking about how that will happen at the end of the mine life.

“There’s no current request to release anything in place.”

That’s small comfort, said Stewart. He points out that the reason the tailings ponds have been such an intractable problem is because it’s so difficult to get impurities such as salts and heavy metals out of the water. Stewart notes:

[quote]The problem they’ve had is that they can’t get the stuff out of the water and they’ve been trying for 40 years. For 40 years we’ve been hearing we’re just about to solve this problem and we haven’t.[/quote]

Not only is the cleanup proving difficult, it’s also expensive, Stewart said. He fears industry is lobbying government to allow it to release some level of process-affected water back into the environment.

Stringham said any released water would meet government standards.

“What we’re looking at is the water that would be liberated from tailings during the reclamation process that would then be treated to meet all the environmental criteria, and then put back into the environment.”

Booth suggested Alberta is approaching the idea with caution.

“More work is needed on treatment technology and science,” she said. “If potential technology is developed that may allow for tailings water to be released into the natural environment, then it may be something government would consider at that time.”

Share
Alberta concerned about downstream impacts of BC's Site C Dam proposal

Alberta questions downstream impacts of BC’s Site C Dam proposal

Hydropower, WATER
Share
Alberta concerned about downstream impacts of BC's Site C Dam proposal
BC Hydro’s proposed Site C Dam (artist’s rendering)

by Dene Moore, Canadian Press

FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – The province of Alberta is concerned that a multibillion-dollar hydroelectric dam proposed in northeastern British Columbia could increase mercury levels in fish and escalate the risk of floods or drought along the Peace River that flows through its province.

Alberta’s Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, which manages lands, forests, fish and wildlife in the province, has filed a 23-page submission setting out its concerns to the panel reviewing the massive project.

Environmental review hearings for the $7.9-billion Site C dam proposal by BC Hydro are underway in Fort St. John, B.C.

Site C would be third strike against Peace River

Two existing dams on the Peace River in B.C. have already significantly altered the flow of the river into the neighbouring province, the Alberta submission said, and this has both positive and negative impacts in Alberta.

“Alberta is concerned that Site C will further exacerbate the negative impacts,” said the document filed Nov. 29.

The Site C dam would flood an 83-kilometre stretch of the Peace River from approximately Fort St. John to just upstream of Hudson’s Hope. It would be the third dam on the river, downstream from the W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams.

The two existing dams already lower the river’s natural flow from May to late July, and increase flow from mid-October to mid-April. There are benefits to the flow regulation from BC Hydro, such as a reduced risk of flooding, but there are also risks, Alberta said.

Among those risks is an expected increase in methylmercury levels in fish during construction of the dam.

“Alberta acknowledges that BC Hydro expects increases in MeHg levels in fish populations downstream of the Alberta-B.C. border to be temporary and within fish consumption guidelines,” the submission said.

“However, it is unclear whether Albertans are aware of this increase, the amount of the increase, and the duration of the impact.”

The Alberta government requested ongoing information from BC Hydro to enable the province to inform fishermen on the Peace River of changes to methylmercury levels in fish until concentrations return to pre-construction levels.

Water flow, temperature changes

The impact of the dam on managing ice-related flooding and concern about minimum flow rates during construction were also singled out as concerns. Reduced peak flow affects the aquatic ecosystem on the Peace River, the Peace-Athabaska delta and other riparian wetlands, the document said.

Water fluctuations also cause mortality to fish and eggs by stranding, or indirectly through increased stress on fish, the report said.

There are also concerns about changes Site C will cause in water temperature downstream from the dam and reservoir, making the Peace River slower to warm in spring and slower to cool in summer.

“Such changes to water temperatures, though slight, may impact the current distribution and range of cold and cool water fish species within Alberta causing potential declines in some species and increases in others,” the report said. “Temperature changes may also impact the timing of ice freeze-up and break-up events.”

That could result in changes to spawning runs, in egg incubation rates and access to spawning habitat, the submission stated.

Dam could restrict fishing opportunities for Albertans

The province is also concerned about the flow of fish in the river. According to the report:

[quote]Upstream and downstream movement of fish populations is necessary for gene flow and hence long term resiliency in those populations, as well as to allow access to spawning, rearing, feeding, and overwintering areas.[/quote]

BC Hydro has told the neighbouring province that it is exploring options for fish passage, but as yet, “Site C could result in more restrictive fishing opportunities for species Albertans value more highly in the Peace River.”

Parks Canada raises issues with Site C

Parks Canada has also expressed concern about the cumulative effects another B.C. hydroelectric dam could have downstream, on Wood Buffalo National Park and the Peace Athabasca Delta.

The federal agency said the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Fort Chipewyan Métis Association, Little Red River Cree Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation share those concerns. The Athabasca Cree, Dene Tha’, Mikisew Cree and Deninu Kue First Nations, as well as the Metis Nation of Alberta Region 6, have registered to appear before the panel.

“It is Parks Canada’s view that assessment of the operational phase of Site C must include consideration of the impacts of sustained, ongoing operations of all three Peace River dams managed by BC Hydro to ensure adequate assessment and consideration of the cumulative effects of flow regulation,” Parks Canada wrote to the panel.

Share
Hydro rate shock powered by lies

BC Hydro rate shock powered by lies

Economics, Hydropower, WATER
Share
Hydro rate shock powered by lies
BC Energy Minister Bill Bennett

How do you know when a politician’s lying?

When you see his/her lips move.

Bill Bennett, the BC Hydro point man in the government, tells us that there will be a 28% increase in Hydro charges over the next few years, which NDP critic John Horgan says will raise a family’s costs by $300 dollars annually.

The NDP sent out a fundraising plea last week “to fund our work to protect British Columbians from these gigant rate hikes.” Simply campaigning to kill the increases without getting to the root of the matter will do nothing to solve the problem long-term, as our independent economist Erik Andersen has explained in these pages.

Mr. Bennett didn’t tell the whole truth about the need for this rate increase and Horgan, who talks about the obvious impact this will have on families, doesn’t seem to want to go to root of the matter. I will get to that in a moment. First, an obvious question which doesn’t get raised much if at all.

Bleeding Hydro still pays dividends to Liberal Govt

With all its financial woes, BC Hydro still pays a dividend to the government. How can a corporation bleeding to death financially pay a dividend?

The answer is – are you ready for this? – The cost is passed onto us, the beleaguered ratepayer/taxpayer. What is happening is simple – the government takes the dividend that can only be paid by a Hydro rate increase. So, the government steals from our pocket then makes up the theft by raising rates!

The real reason for Hydro’s financial woes

Let me spell it out – these hikes have very little to do with upgrades and everything to do with rank fraud perpetuated by the Campbell/Clark government and placed on the shoulders of BC Hydro, then passed on to us!

Let me pause for a moment to observe that this sleight of hand is indeed happening and raise Mair’s Axiom I to the forefront: “You make a serious mistake in thinking that those in charge know what the hell they’re doing.”

Now the grand theft, entirely unmentioned by the mainstream media.

Here’s the skinny. In 2003 the Campbell government took away BC Hydro’s right to generate any new energy (except Site “C”) and all new energy must be created by private power companies.

(As we go on here, remember Mair’s Axiom I.)

For the most part, private companies – the so-called “run of river” projects – produce the majority of their power during the Spring run-off, just when Hydro has full reservoirs and has no need of private energy.

Well, then, I guess BC Hydro simply doesn’t buy energy from these companies, right?

Wrong! And remember Mair’s Axiom I as we proceed.

BC’s private power sham

These private companies have “take or pay clauses”, which means that Hydro must pay for this unwanted and unneeded energy!

Ah! You say, Hydro would be able to get this power cheaply, right?

Wrong. Remember Axiom I – they must pay 2-3 times the market price and about 10x what they can make it for themselves!

What are the consequences from this for Hydro?

Over the next 20-40 years they will have to shell out over $50 BILLION dollars to these private companies, somewhere between $1.5 and $2 BILLION per year for power that don’t need and must pay at least double its worth. Note, that these private contracts, by all accounts, are indexed to increase over time, so that they are protected from the marketplace.

Now the scandals: Bill Bennett is shielding this $50 BILLION from his reasons for Hydro increases – and for reasons I can’t fathom, the NDP critic, John Horgan, isn’t talking about it.

“You make a big mistake…”

Share
New dam planned for St. Lawrence River

New hydro project planned for St. Lawrence River

Hydropower, Uncategorized, WATER
Share

New dam planned for St. Lawrence River

BECANCOUR, Que. – The Quebec government is helping to bankroll a $130-million project by RER Hydro, Hydro-Quebec and Boeing to generate clean energy on the St. Lawrence River, in what officials say would be the world’s largest river-generated turbine farm. The three-phase project could eventually culminate in nine megawatts of renewable power being generated in Montreal from 46 turbines that would be installed in 2016. The province could contribute up to $85 million on top of the $3 million it already spent for the initial $23 million testing phase.

Share
Site C Dam heads to public hearings next month

Need for Site C Dam exaggerated as public hearings start next month

Hydropower, WATER
Share

Site C Dam heads to public hearings next month

Public hearings into the controversial, $8 Billion Site C Dam are set to commence next month, as the Joint Review Panel for the project indicated today that proponent BC Hydro has filled in some key gaps identified in its proposal.

The process will kick off on December 9 in Fort St. John and is scheduled to wrap up by the end of January, with a final recommendation on the project expected mid-year.

Do we really need Site C Dam?

BC Hydro maintains the need for the project is strong – a contention that has been challenged repeatedly in these pages.

“The need for the project is there certainly in the long term, it’s long-term planning. It, in fact, may be needed sooner, particularly from a capacity perspective,” Hydro spokesperson Dave Conway told media, citing a growth in demand to supply liquefied natural gas (LNG), mining and other industrial sectors.

Conway also referenced anticipated growth in population and use of electronic devices in defence of the need for a new dam.

But there are some serious holes in Hydro’s story.

BC’s electrical consumption flat

First off, despite considerable growth in population and electronic devices over the past decade, BC’s electrical consumption has remained pretty well flat. According to Stats BC, the province was a net exporter of 5,800 Gigawatt hours (GWhrs) of power last year – an excess of more than 10% of our actual demand. That figure is trending upward, as BC is awash in private power, while at the same time doing well with conservation.

Hydro predicted a growth in demand of 40% over the next two decades in its recent draft Integrated Resource Plan, but the utility has a long history of overestimating power needs, as independent economist Erik Andersen has detailed in The Common Sense Canadian.

Thirty years ago, when Site C was first proposed, British Columbians were threatened with brown-outs if the dam wasn’t constructed. Needless to say, this scary scenario never came close to materializing.

LNG a whole different animal

That said, the idea of powering the enormously energy-intensive, proposed LNG industry does introduce massive new electrical demands for the province. But this notion is fraught with a litany of problems, such as:

  • The dam isn’t expected to be completed until 2022-2023 at the earliest – which is too late for proposed LNG plants to depend on.
  • BC’s taxpayers and ratepayers need to ask themselves whether they want to spend $8 billion (likely far more, given the typical cost overruns of dams in general, not to mention this government’s routine mismanagement of capital projects) on a dam to provide subsidized power to the oil and gas industry. Site C will only compound already skyrocketing power bills for consumers.
  • The dam carries considerable environmental and food security trade-offs as it would flood close to 60,000 acres of wildlife habitat and prime farmland in the beautiful Peace River Valley. This at a time when the government is allegedly set to dismantle the Agricultural Land Commission to remove pesky farmland as an obstacle to oil and gas development.

Dam faces strong opposition

Local First Nations, environmental groups and landowners are supported by organizations beyond the region too, such as the Vancouver-based Wilderness Committee.

Says the organization’s National Campaign Director Joe Foy on today’s announcement:

[quote]There’s 100 kilometres of river valley — a huge amount of farmland — that would be flooded. I don’t know if the people in the south have locked on that yet. While that river is still running, we’ve got some fight in us.[/quote]

The real question

Site C is often justified in terms of powering 450,000 homes, which is an unfair characterization, since BC looks to be a net exporter of power for years to come. When the government or crown corporation acknowledges that Site C is really about powering industry, at least they’re being more honest with the public. But in a day and age when we produce just 40% of our own food in BC, when power bills are going through the roof, when we’re running sizeable deficits and racking up debt for future generations, the question is this:

[quote]Should taxpayers shell out billions to destroy a massive amount of quality agricultural and forest land – all to provide highy-subsidized power to the oil and gas industry?[/quote]

This is the question that needs to be front and centre at these public hearings beginning next month.

The Joint Review Panel is currently accepting applications to speak at the hearings.

Share
Will Water Act overhaul rein in groundwater use for fracking, LNG?

Will new Water Act rein in groundwater use for fracking, LNG?

Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Scarcity, WATER, Water and Hydrocarbons
Share
Will Water Act overhaul rein in groundwater use for fracking, LNG?
Frack water pit in BC’s Horn River Basin (photo: Damien Gillis)

By Anna Novacek – republished from Energy Law BC

As the only province in Canada that does not regulate groundwater use, BC has been referred to as the “wild west” of groundwater.

Groundwater has and will continue to be relied on heavily by the LNG industry as a key source of the extensive amount of water necessary to conduct hydraulic fracturing. While the amount of water will vary between wells due to the changes in geology and the size of the reservoir, the volumes can be immense. EnCana Corp. states that between 200,000 and 1.2 million litres of water (roughly 1/10th to one half of an Olympic swimming pool) is needed to complete one well.

Surface water is regulated by short term water use approvals found under Section 8 of the Water Act [RSBC 1996] c. 483 (“the Water Act”). Surface water licensees are required to use water in accordance with the Water Act, the terms and conditions of their licence, and to pay annual water rentals. None of these requirements currently apply to groundwater users, even those using it on a large scale.

With a legislative proposal for a new Water Sustainability Act, however, this may be changing.

Updating century-old Water Act

BC’s current Water Act is 104 years old. The Water Act Modernization process began in 2009, and has included on-going workshops and consultations with the public, First Nations and stakeholders, resulting in a Water Act Modernization Report on Engagement in September 2010, and a Policy Proposal for the new Water Sustainability Act in December 2010. The original plan was to introduce the new Water Sustainability Act in 2012; however the “complexity of developing legislation with widespread implications for British Columbians” resulted in delay.

Public feedback sought

On October 18th, 2013 the province released a legislative proposal for a new Water Sustainability Act. A summary of this proposal can be accessed here. The proposal is open for public feedback until November 15th, 2013. It is expected to be submitted to the legislative assembly as a bill in 2014 for debate and final approval.

Key changes

The changes to provincial regulation of groundwater outlined in the legislative proposal for a Water Sustainability Act include:

  • Large volume users would be required to obtain authorization and pay application fees and annual water rentals to access groundwater.  Groundwater use for ‘domestic purposes’ would generally be exempt from this requirement
  • Information will be collected from all well owners to help improve understanding of aquifers and how they interact with lakes and streams
  • A database of all groundwater wells in the province will be established to help inform future water allocation decisions
  • The minimal standards under the Ground Water Protection Regulation BC Reg. 299/2004will be expanded to require the mandatory submission of well records for new wells, as well as requiring testing and disinfection of a water supply well after drilling to reduce the risk of contamination, and guidelines for ensuring contaminants are stored away from water supply wells.
  • The requirement regarding well drilling and the protection of groundwater will be updated. It is proposed that the WSA would clarify that drilling into or penetrating an aquifer is a ‘disturbance’ and requires a qualified well driller.

The complete legislative proposal is available here.

Devil’s in the details

The key question is whether the new Water Sustainability Act will be designed to restrict or minimize groundwater use in any way, or instead focus more on initial approvals, the provision of information and increasing reporting requirements. The application of exemptions within the new legislation will also be an important factor determining how industry will ultimately be affected.

Share