Selling renewable resources abroad - absolutely!
Renewables or non-renewables...you have all the foresight of lyin' Brian.
Site C: Unfortunately 4 Billion Dollars already committed by Liberals was too much to ignore
Thu, 2010-04-22 00:28
#52
Thu, 2010-04-22 00:29
#53
scott
How is flooding prime agricultural land renewable? Does it magicly unflood itself later?
In other news Alberta will seek intervenor status in the public hearings:
Thu, 2010-04-22 12:05
#54
Like it, or don't like it, we're a nation of traders. Canada's problem is not that we are selling our renewable resources, but how we negotiate the deals.
Thu, 2010-04-22 12:34
#55
Yea, let's not go ahead and deprive the people in the area of decent jobs. Great thinking.
Residents mull Site C dam challenges
Aboriginals, regional leaders seek benefits from $6.6-billion project
Communities in the region want to benefit from development of the dam -- a multi-year economic boom providing 7,600 direct local jobs and 35,000 direct and indirect jobs provincewide -- but not if the megaproject threatens drinking-water supplies or overwhelms community services, northeast mayors say.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Residents+mull+Site+challenges/2932782/story.html
Mon, 2010-04-26 01:08
#56
The Columbia River Treaty allower the flooding on severl BC valleys in exchange for (anong other things) "downstream benefits" which could have been taken as power, but instead was taken in cash in the form of the Columbia Basin Trust. The Province has a choice to import power generated by the flooding of it's own valleys but it chooses to build even more dams instead.
Just a point of clarification: BC does take the downstream benefits in cash. The Columbia Basin Trust was set up with a $45 million endowment form the province. It was set up in response to pressure from basin residents to mitigate the social, environmental and economic damage caused by the Treaty dams - i.e. the area languished while the rest of the province flourished.
Tue, 2010-04-27 20:13
#57
Site C Confirms Libs' Energy Claims Don't Compute
BC's river giveaway to private producers was never about self-sufficiency, we now see.
Sat, 2013-06-15 12:45
#58
I wonder when the shovels will be in the ground
BC Hydro, Peace River District reach Site C deal
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/06/13/BCHydroSiteCDeal/
Sat, 2013-06-15 13:51
#59
Thu, 2021-10-07 19:50
#60
.
Mon, 2013-06-17 00:19
#61
Christy Clark according to the Wall Street Journal is now in negotiations with the LNG multi-nationals over how much taxes, royalties, etc. they are going to paying BC?
Guaranteed it won't be much., as of course there has to be special tax breaks for the one percenters.
Let's give all our resources away in BC at breakneck speed just like they are doing in Alberta. I call bullshit to debt-free BC in 50 years. Heritage fund my ass!
Mon, 2013-06-17 01:52
#62
So, you're against Site C now, North Report? It's not really clear from your posts.
Mon, 2013-06-17 02:38
#63
Left Turn
All the power produced by Site C is slated to be used by the LNG industry, not to satisfy consumer demand. That alone should be reason to oppose the project.
Shale gas extraction (fracking) is a dangerous industry that pumps a toxic mixture of water and chemicals deep underground in order to fracture the rock and release the gas contained therein. This process has the potential to contaminate groundwater and can cause earthquakes. Residents living near fracking wells can have their drinking water contaminated; there have been documented cases of residents living near fracking wells in the United States being able to set their water on fire. And the water that is used as part of the fracking fluid stays underground, contaminated, and is not recovered.
The plan is to then cool the gas to -162 degrees celcius to produce liquid natural gas (LNG), a process that requires a massive ammount of power. It will then and then be transported it via pipeline to either Kitimat or Prince Rupert, a process that requires another large ammount of power to run the pumping station that push the LNG through the pipeline. Once at the coast, much of it will be refined in two LNG refineries that are slated to be built, yet another massive use of power, and then the whole lot, refined and/or unrefined, will be shipped to overseas markets, principally China. It's estimated that the power requirements of LNG production and transport equal about 1/3 of the current total power consumption in BC.
The Pacific Trails gas fracking pipeline must pass throgh unceeded indigenous territory; some of the indigenous nations are opposed to the pipeline, and the Unist'ot'en have even set up a camp blockading the route of the pipeline through their territory. Then there's the potential for LNG leaks along the pipeline route threatening a large number of streams, some of them salmon bearing, as well as the surrounding landscape. And transporting the gas by ocean tankers runs the risk of tankers crashing and spilling large ammounts of LNG into the Pacific Ocean.
Not to mention that we cannot afford to burn these fossil fuels if we want to stabilize our climate, stop cooking our planet, and ensure the long-term survival of life on earth.
So we definitely should not be going ahead with the LNG development that will use the power from the Site C dam. And the other future power needs of our province can be satisfied through conservation.
We don't need to build the Site C Dam and flood some of the most valuable farmland in this province.
Mon, 2013-06-17 03:15
#64
The problem with solar (and I'm a huge supporter of things like solar chimney towers) is that in photovoltaic form, it requires a lot of rare earth metals.
Mon, 2013-06-17 09:33
#65
Site C is going to be built, sooner rather than later. The hydro power it will generate will go to the LNG plants about to be constructed on Canada's West Coast. Haven't we all heard how BC is going to be debt-free in 50 years from LNG royalties. 
Tue, 2013-06-18 22:59
#66
What we'll be giving up:
Tue, 2013-06-18 23:14
#67
The plan is to then cool the gas to -162 degrees celcius to produce liquid natural gas (LNG), a process that requires a massive ammount of power. It will then and then be transported it via pipeline to either Kitimat or Prince Rupert, a process that requires another large ammount of power to run the pumping station that push the LNG through the pipeline. Once at the coast, much of it will be refined in two LNG refineries that are slated to be built, yet another massive use of power, and then the whole lot, refined and/or unrefined, will be shipped to overseas markets, principally China. It's estimated that the power requirements of LNG production and transport equal about 1/3 of the current total power consumption in BC.
What I heard directly from Transcanada is that it will be transported in gas form and cooled to liquid at the proposed LNG plant in Rupert. The fracking will be done by Progress Energy, which was recently acquired by Malaysian state corporation Petronas. The LNG plant would also be built by Progress/Petronas. So the extracting is done by Petronas, the LNG processing is done by Petronas and exported from there, by Progress/Petronas, to its own markets in Asia. The transport is done by Transcanada Pipelines.
What Canada and BC get out of the deal is some pennies in property taxes for where the pipeline goes, some pennies in royalties, and about four years of pipeline construction. What we won't be getting is cheap energy from our own natural resources, or revenue stream from our own energy industry, because we don't have our own energy industry.
Wed, 2013-06-19 02:33
#68
The plan is to then cool the gas to -162 degrees celcius to produce liquid natural gas (LNG), a process that requires a massive ammount of power. It will then and then be transported it via pipeline to either Kitimat or Prince Rupert, a process that requires another large ammount of power to run the pumping station that push the LNG through the pipeline. Once at the coast, much of it will be refined in two LNG refineries that are slated to be built, yet another massive use of power, and then the whole lot, refined and/or unrefined, will be shipped to overseas markets, principally China. It's estimated that the power requirements of LNG production and transport equal about 1/3 of the current total power consumption in BC.
What I heard directly from Transcanada is that it will be transported in gas form and cooled to liquid at the proposed LNG plant in Rupert. The fracking will be done by Progress Energy, which was recently acquired by Malaysian state corporation Petronas. The LNG plant would also be built by Progress/Petronas. So the extracting is done by Petronas, the LNG processing is done by Petronas and exported from there, by Progress/Petronas, to its own markets in Asia. The transport is done by Transcanada Pipelines.
What Canada and BC get out of the deal is some pennies in property taxes for where the pipeline goes, some pennies in royalties, and about four years of pipeline construction. What we won't be getting is cheap energy from our own natural resources, or revenue stream from our own energy industry, because we don't have our own energy industry.
They only need to liquify it to ship it overseas.
Sat, 2013-12-07 22:06
#69
B.C. Hydro faces widespread community opposition over dam
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-hydro-faces-wide...
Tue, 2013-12-10 14:08
#70
Schedule for the community hearings, which began this week, when there are no major holidays looming and everyone has lots of time on their hands: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p63919/96265E.pdf
There is a slightly more up-to-date one, but for some reason, CEAA won't post that one. You can request it from them though.
Tue, 2013-12-10 15:21
#71
geo thermal needs to be developed not flooding more land so FN's can't have it....
Tue, 2013-12-10 15:36
#72
BCers have rivers and mountains that make hydro-development projects like Site C feasible in BC. And BCers are extremely fortunate that we can create large quantities of power without going the nuclear route.
Like the Northern Gateway and Keystone Pipline projects, Site C appears to be going ahead, so realistically we all need to make the best of it including First Nations.
What kind of job did Bechtel do building the James Bay Development Project in Quebec?
Tue, 2013-12-10 15:39
#73
don't know don't care....and no we don't need to make the best of it!!!!!!!!
a small little geothermal plant proposed for here would provid power for thousands of homes and industry.
Tue, 2013-12-10 16:04
#74
Canada certainly does not seem to be in the forefront with geo-thermal energy production.
As a matter of fact Canada hardly seems to be on the map at all.
But getting back to Site C, so we flood a little bit here, but other areas will probably dry up, as the water is relocated, so what's the big deal. There are always spin-offs to any project some good and some bad, but really can't see the environmental downside of Site C. And landowners usually get compensated for something that is deemed to be in the public interest.
Tue, 2013-12-10 16:57
#75
Canada certainly does not seem to be in the forefront with geo-thermal energy production.As a matter of fact Canada hardly seems to be on the map at all.
ya...our project here we're trying to get going would be a first... and there could be many more like ours if people refused to allow more flooding
But getting back to Site C, so we flood a little bit here, but other areas will probably dry up, as the water is relocated, so what's the big deal.
get some education on this as you ain't got any your words are totally silly!!!!!
There are always spin-offs to any project some good and some bad, but really can't see the environmental downside of Site C. And landowners usually get compensated for something that is deemed to be in the public interest.
meh...short sightedness like yours has ruined the planet.
Tue, 2013-12-10 20:39
#76
Like the Northern Gateway and Keystone Pipline projects, Site C appears to be going ahead, so realistically we all need to make the best of it including First Nations.
In what way does Site C appear to be going ahead, North Report? Do you have information that the rest of the public doesn't?
Tue, 2013-12-10 21:48
#77
Tue, 2013-12-10 22:15
#78
At least the Germans are bowing out of nuclear power which is indeed a bonus.
Too bad the Ontario Liberal government are so out-of-date, and behind the times.
Tue, 2013-12-10 22:47
#79
..here's another disatisfied customer to this whole rip off/destroy the enviroment/greed thingy going. everyday people wake up with more and more reasons to hate this system..with no help from anyone. nobody knew when the que students rose how high they would soar.
BC/Yukon First Nation bans fracking, finds impacts outweigh benefits
A First Nation with un-surrendered traditional territory in both northern BC and the Yukon passed a motion late last week banning fracking. On December 5, the Carcross/Tagish First Nation (C/TFN) General Council ratified an earlier motion from the nation’s Executive Council, opposing the controversial natural gas extraction process on its territory.
“It’s our responsibility to protect our lands and water for future generations,” said the Executive Council’s George Shepherd, who moved the motion....
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/bcyukon-first-nation-bans-fracking-finds-i...
edit
Wed, 2013-12-11 12:54
#80
B.C. Hydro rejected alternatives to Site C dam, hearing told
B.C. Hydro considered but rejected six alternatives to the Site C dam, including a series of seven small, cascading dams, the chief project engineer for the dam said Tuesday.
Consultant John Nunn said that the seven dams had a smaller reservoir footprint than Site C but would have been more costly in terms of requiring multiple sites for infrastructure, access roads, work camps and transmission lines.
When it came to the most effective use of the river for hydroelectricity, Site C came out ahead, he said, adding that it was also an excellent site for topographic and geological reasons with access to gravel for construction.
http://www.timescolonist.com/business/b-c-hydro-rejected-alternatives-to...
Thu, 2013-12-12 12:14
#81
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
You have yet to address an objection, and continue to mindlessly cheerlead, NR. So why exactly are you pimping this here?
Thu, 2013-12-12 18:26
#82
Just because someone is not necessarily touting your side of the fence LTJ, there is no need for personal attacks.
Thu, 2013-12-12 19:26
#83
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
The need for the mildest of personal attacks results from the need to get your attention, my friend.
Now that I have it, perhaps you might actually explain your persistant promotion of this unnecessary project? And could you then try to respond to the objections placed before you here by any number of people, rather than ignoring them?
Thank you for your co-operation.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps fuck you - if you're just going to go back to your usual shtick.
I hope not. But I'm good either way.
Thu, 2013-12-12 23:33
#84
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Sat, 2013-12-14 17:24
#85
eta: oops! wrong video. ok now.
hi northreport
..i've watched this video twice and i believe it represents a very close to reality analysis. it paints a far more positive position for plans to be derailed. i would like your thoughts.
Preliminary Deal Reached for New Major Tar Sands Pipeline in Western Canada
video & transcript
The two Canadian western provinces of Alberta and British Columbia have struck a deal to create a pipeline to get tar sands oil to Canada's west coast. The issue of tar sands has been hotly contested across the country and has been opposed by Canada's First Nations communities, as well as environmental groups.Now joining us to discuss this is Yves Engler. He's a Canadian commentator and author. His most recent book is The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper's Foreign Policy. And previously he published The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy. Thank you so much for joining us....
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&I...
Sat, 2013-12-14 20:58
#86
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/anxiety-over-site-c...
This doesn't mean that it won't get built, but it does add to the arguments against.
Sat, 2013-12-14 21:22
#87
AB and NWT should look at the Columbia Basin Treaty for a model of what they should've been asking for and doing over the years because the damming of the Peace.
Tue, 2013-12-17 16:47
#88
So a few houses are going to floored out. Big deal, it happens every day of the week for the common good both witihn Canada and outside of it.
I did see however see an article recently written by Seth of the CCPA Vancouver Branch that gave me cause for concern for the project based on economic reasons.
If someone knows the link to it please post it as it is worth a read.
Tue, 2013-12-17 17:00
#89
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
That's it? No actual response to anything?
i am reminded of a story my father tells about mediated labour negotiations he took part in. Profanity was not allowed. But a substitute language soon developed, the code understood by both sides.
I hope you'll understand when I say: FANtastic, NR.
Tue, 2013-12-17 17:02
#90
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
...and Merry Christmas to all.
Tue, 2013-12-17 20:26
#91
My concern is strictly financial. Period.
What is the point of building the project if it does not make sense financially.
I don't care if a few homes are flooded out because our democratically elected governments are supposed to represent the public good. And this is what happens sometimes, although hopefully not too often.
So it is financial what concerns me about the Site C project.
And yes of course any project on First Nations land has to be negotiated.
But hydro-electric projects are probablly the least damaging to the environment of any current viable method used to obtain power.
And yes solar and geo-thermal power are promising for the future, but realistically are not part of today's considerations
Seth Klein - LNG Revenue Projections Are A "Pipe Dream'
Tue, 2013-12-17 20:45
#92
why do you say not realistically part of today's consideration?
they damn well are and should be. they're way cheaper than building a dam, buying out land owners and taking water away from FN's and others in AB.
environmental and wild life concerns and FN's claims push site c well over the top of being non-feasible.
Thu, 2013-12-19 02:27
#93
why do you say not realistically part of today's consideration?
they damn well are and should be. they're way cheaper than building a dam, buying out land owners and taking water away from FN's and others in AB.
environmental and wild life concerns and FN's claims push site c well over the top of being non-feasible.
What's more the decreasing costs and incorporation of storage are making intermittent sources of energy far more feasible.
Fri, 2013-12-20 11:08
#94
What is the point of building the project if it does not make sense financially.
You're just discovering this now?
Fri, 2013-12-20 16:30
#95
So the ndp is going to run against
Keystone
LNG
Site c
And northern gateway
If so they will come 3rd in next federal election
Sat, 2013-12-21 19:06
#96
So the ndp is going to run against Keystone LNG Site c And northern gateway If so they will come 3rd in next federal election
Keystone is not even a Canadian decision, so it is pointless to even talk about running for or against it (and the decision will be made next year in all likelihood). LNG may prove to be a fantasy by 2015 if the markets do not materialize, but I doubt the federal NDP would run against it, as it is mostly in provincial jurisdiction. The Site C joint review process may have been concluded by then and who knows whether it will be taken to the courts like Northern Gateway. And Northern Gateway may still be in the courts by the fall of 2015, or Enbridge may have decided it's too expensive, and the focus will be on Kinder-Morgan. The NDP will likely be advocating a far more comprehensive federal environmental assessment process, and that of course will leave the question of whether anything that has been initiated or approved will or can be reassessed. On the other hand a few more major floods or droughts or forest fires and complete collapse of the Arctic sea ice next summer or the one after (possible but not probable in my view) may get everyone's attention so that the environment and not the economy will finally become the main issue. Then it will, as it should, be a debate over how to build a sustainable economy, not pablum about green jobs in an otherwise destructive economy.
Tue, 2014-10-14 18:43
#97
Site C dam project granted environmental assessment approval
Environment Ministry issues certificate to B.C. Hydro but B.C. government must still approve funding
Artist's rendering of proposed Site C dam (BC Hydro)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/site-c-dam-project-grante...
Tue, 2014-10-14 22:02
#98
Canadian government concludes Site C dam should proceed despite environmental consequences (updated)
Meanwhile, the B.C. government approves environmental certificate for Site C dam
quote:
Morison noted that Treaty 8 First Nations in the Peace River have repeatedly warned they will resort to legal action to stop the project. “They have every intention of taking them to court on this if cabinet does decide to approve the project. We’ll be backing them up.”
Last month, First Nations told the provincial government it could have either the Site C dam or liquefied natural gas from the northeast, but not both.
Chief Roland Willson of the West Moberly First Nation said a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada has bolstered their say in any industrial development on that land. “If you want to push Site C, we’re not going to be in favour of any LNG projects, any of the pipeline projects up there.”
In a brief news conference Tuesday, Polak said she believed there had been adequate consultation with aboriginal groups.
Polak said the government has yet to decide to go ahead with the project....
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/government+approves+environmental...
Wed, 2014-10-15 08:50
#99
Canadian government concludes Site C dam should proceed despite environmental consequences (updated)
Meanwhile, the B.C. government approves environmental certificate for Site C dam
http://www.canada.com/business/energy/Canadian+government+concludes+Site...
Tue, 2014-12-16 21:39
#100
Humm.............
Site C dam approved by B.C. government
Massive hydro project would flood a large area of the Peace River Valley in northern B.C.
In making the announcement, Premier Christy Clark said the Site C Clean Energy Project will provide B.C. residents with a reliable source of power for the next 100 years for the least cost to the taxpayer.
B.C. Premier Christy Clark says the Site C dam will ensure B.C.'s energy self-sufficiency for the next 100 years at a reliable cost to the taxpayer. (CBC)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/site-c-dam-approved-by-b-...
Wed, 2014-12-17 13:20
#101
I guess the BC NDP don't really want to win the next election because they are kissing away their election chances as usual with their approach to Site C.