Forgive me if you find some conflicting data from post to posts. My intention is to provide food for thought, and as I learn new things, I may link it in or reference it, but not go back to earlier posts and make corrections. Thank you and enjoy.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

10 Days left - And Oh, we will remember

There are about 10 days left till a few NBer's get to cast their vote in the provincial election.






A lot of people will not forget the Liberal effort to sell of NB Power last winter. And someone went to a lot of work to advertise that fact. This sign apperas to be the full height of a tractor trailer.







The popular vote at the moment appears to be turning PC. Check out the numbers at threehundredeight.com. Lots of polling coverage from across the country. Current projection is a PC majority government with 29 to 38 seats.

http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2010/09/pcs-roar-ahead-in-new-brunswick.html



The local liberal mla and current deputy premier is getting the cold shoulder. Seems no one wants to associate with him, he gets shunned at local fais and events, he has breakfast every morning by himself at a local restaurant. And I heard today that the PC candidate, Joe Elias is even being followed by the media. Apparently they don't want to miss the story of a liberal stronghold riding turning blue.
Here is a neat website dedicated to graphically displaying the debt the current governmetn has racked up in the last four years.






http://picasaweb.google.ca/g.fox.help/nbnetdebt#







My favorite :



SO might this be the next big movie in NB:







Here are a couple of new links to check out as well.

Democracy for NB : http://democracyfornb.com/en/

I think maybe the conservatives took down their liberal parody website,
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nbvotes2010/story/2010/08/30/nb-liberal-tory-website-221.html

But most of the info is still here.
http://www.youtube.com/user/nbliberalparty

Till the next time, vote with intelligence, and if you don't want to vote, visit this site.

http://www.tatumba.com/blog/archives/1949






Sunday, May 30, 2010

NB Power's latest profit

Yes, I have been a little quiet. Busy with a shutdown and the long hours.

A story of interest that I'm quite sure a few have read, is the profit of NB Power.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/05/29/nb-power-posts-profits.html#socialcomments


To which my only comment is :

"Probably the biggest reason that NB Power showed a big profit was that Graham and his freinds were too busy with "the sale" and Atcon and other such stuff, to be pilfering through NB Power's pockets."

A lot of the social comments from the same article, pretty much wrap up the general feeling of the populations and the government interference.

'Til the next time, keep up the fight.
.
.
.
.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

"It is not about blame," he said. "It is about facts.

"It is not about blame," he said. "It is about facts.

Imagine. These are words straight from Jack Kiers mouth. See the linked article.

http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/cityregion/article/1030359

And the comments to the article!!! Seems like Hill and Knowlton are back.

Well Folks, this three per cent rate hike to pay the deferral cost is the same one that The Ganong report reccomended to graham that should be paid right away when Lepreau is finally fininshed. But Graham and Kier wanted to delay it until the end of five years, and then let Hydro Quebec add some interest to it. So it would have been more than the three percent, and that would have been on top of the two percent inflation rate. And for the industrial customers, it would have included the 3% rate hike that HQ (sorry - the Quebec government) plans to implement starting in 2014. (see two posts down)

But I have a beef with my perception of what is transpiring out there.

Seems when MOU1 was announced, the general response was "Don't sell NB Power"

Seems when MOU2 was announced, the general response was "Don't sell NB Power"

Seems when the deal is dead, but the little old Dalhousie station is put on the chopping block, the general response is "Where's Dalhousie?? Does it burn a fossil fuel?" Maybe people are only interested in saving clean nuclear stations and hydro stations. I thought NB Power was ALL of NB Power.

Let 's see , This article was posted a week ago and got 58 comments. With the most thumbs up of 57.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/04/20/nb-dalhousie-generating-station.html#socialcomments

This article about Irving dropping the Lepreau rotors in the water and being sued was posted 10 hours ago and has 58 comments as well. The most thumbs up is already over 120.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/04/27/nb-lepreau-rotors-lawsuit.html

Seems people are just more interested when Irving makes the news for thier general screw up than some distant place far north of the big cities of NB that is dying a slow death.
.
.
.
.While everyone mulls on that tidbid, lets finish off with another conspiracy theory :

"Let's see, $40M fine to Irving vs $475M cost in delay overruns. Plus Irving makes $M's from gas consumers as long as Lepreau is not putting out electricity.

Sounds like a good deal to me. For Irving that is.

It was an accident wasn't it?"

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Dalhousie Power Plant up for SALE

Well, I'm quite sure everyone has seen the news.

Our elected officials have decided to break the law again by putting up the Dalhousie station for sale. It may not run much after it's cheap fuel source runs out, but until Lepreau is back online, it would be needed for winter peaking. So that makes it not a surplus asset, and not eligilbe for sale.

But it is. At least according to the CBC.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/04/20/nb-dalhousie-generating-station.html#socialcomments

I say that the huge gas feild under Dalhousie should be developed by NB Power to provide a source of the fuel. This way they don't have to pay market prices for the gas. Just enough to provide Petrolia with a handsome profit. If the feild is directly below the plant, then there would no main pipeline connection required. Therefore, the gas will not be priced at market rates. This would give Petrolia some profit, and allow them to futher develope the feild and ultimately allow for a pipeline connection. But, like the potash mine in Sussex, NB Power would have already written their own contract, and may get cheap fuel until scheduled end of the station.


Check out this 25 year old study of how several US power plants similiar to Dalhousie were successfully and easily converted to natural gas from oil and coal.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/27246/MIT-EL-86-009-18573189.pdf?sequence=1

And check out how much natural gas is right underneath the Dalhousie station. Probably wouldn't even need a pipeline. Petroliagaz even has the Dalhousie station marked on their drawings as a potential consumer.

http://www.petroliagaz.com/imports/pdf/en/Dalhousie-onepager_janv2009en.pdf

The Prize : A Giant gas feild.

.
.
.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Quebec to implement rate hike

I had blogged about how the Quebec Government was going to implement a 1 cent per kw rate hike in Quebec. Notice I say government, because they can set the rate at whatever they want, regardless of what HQ wants to do.

Quebec just announced the rate hike. The amount is the same, but my timing was a little off. It starts in 2014 and is raised for four years, and then is tied to the inflation rate after 2018. So whatever deal Graham may have signed with Charest, it wouldn't have meant much after the five year freeze.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/todays-paper/Annual+hydro+bills+will+2018/2746454/story.html

So basically, the belle province with the unlimited free hydro power will see power rate hikes no different than the rest of the mortal world.

Check out this old article as well. http://www.sqwalk.com/blog2006/000864.html

"Harnessing electricity on the Romaine would be an expensive proposition, probably surpassing 9 cents per kwh."

It is also mentioned in the first article that " Power from Hydro-Québec developments built since 2000 is priced at about eight cents a kilowatt-hour."

And where do these guys get their information. AV Cell executives talking about a 20% rise in their power bill over the next 5 years. At the most, it was to be 3% for five years. So that will be about 16.5%. Anything to sell a paper I guess.


http://nbbusinessjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/1007591
.
.
.
Later Folks

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

CBC .....tsk tsk tsk !!!! How about this idea for Dalhousie

Well CBC, you seem to have some facts wrong about the NB Power Dalhousie Generating Station. At least about the plant being designed to burn Orimulsion.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/03/28/nb-dalhousie-jobs-nbpower-409.html#socialcomments


BOth plant just recently celebrated their 30 and 40th Birthdays. Ironically, just a couple of days before the MOU announcement last fall. It was open to some public and invited guests and retirees.

Unit # 1 is 100MW in size. To put that in perspective, it would supply the then IP Bowater paper mill in the town of Dalhousie when it was first commisioned in 1969. Until a few years ago, 100 MW would kep the province of PEI well lit up. Unit # 1 has a boiler designed to burn coal and #6 fuel oil. It was never fitted with any coal firing equipment, and was used on #6 bunker C through the 70's, and sparadically in the 80's.

Unit # 2 has a size of 212 MW. The boiler and turnbine were supplied from the same manufacturers as the unit # 1. The boiler was designed to burn bunker 6 and Minto coal. This makes it special in the fact that it is a very large boiler for it's capacity to handle the then high ash, high sulphur minto coal. Unit # 2 was commisioned in 1979.

In 1988 the Venezulens approached NB Power looking for a demonstration plant to burn it's new Orimulsion(TM) fuel. Unit # 1 fit the bill perfectly. They graciously added a precipitator to remove flyash from the stack emmisions and spent a year or so supplying Orimulsion to enable the test burn. The test was quite successful, and Venezuela signed a long term contract with NB Power in 1991 to supply fuel to Dalhousie. They also signed many contracts with the British, Italians, and Japanese. I think there some other European countries in the mix as well. For many years Orimulsion flowed all over the planet. With the steady rise in the price of crude through the 90's, the Venezuelans finally decided they could make a lot more money upgrading the oil deposits and selling it as a more refined product. The Orinoco belt is similiar to the Alberta Tar Sands, and said to be as large as the rest of the worlds oil deposits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orinoco_Belt

Read this to learn a little more about Orimulsion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orimulsion
It does say that China is the only place left thet gets any Orimulsion, but I beleive that has ended as well.

Poor NB Power was kinda caught in the middle of the ending of the Orimulsion program, and probably some local political issue. And that is all I care to say about that. Needless to say, NB Power sued and won their case to the tune of roughly 350 million dollars. I'd say that you don't win settlement that big, without having some paperwork on your side to back it up.

Anyway, back to Dalhousie. In 1994 both stations at Dalhousie were fully converted to burn Orimulsion adn went commercial that year. They actually were burning it on and off from the time of the test burn through the time they were fully commercial.

The main part of the conversion was the addition of a Flue Gas Desulpherization unit to clean up the emmisions and make it compliant with laws of the day. (and today)

It was the third such unit in Canada to have a FGD added. Another NB Power facility ( Belledune) was first. Ironically, the oil fired unit at Tracy Quebec, has no srubbers,or even precipitators I beleive. Making it antiquated and one of the worst polluting power stations in Canada. It has 4 units, of the same design as Dalhousie, but with a total output of 660MW. It has a full time staff of 120 employees. It is required for peaking and backup.
http://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/centrale-thermique.html

And yet Dalhousie would be slated to be closed and demolished in favour of keeping a more polluting station running in Quebec. That is not environmetally freindly now is it????

The value of that FGD in todays cost to add to a 312 MW station at $319 per kw. Or $319 x 1000kw/mw x 312MW = $100,000,000. That's in US dollars.

http://www.powermag.com/business/Update-Whats-That-Scrubber-Going-to-Cost_1743_p2.html

The US fleet of coal fired power plants currently equipped with
flue-gas desulfurization systems:

• US – 248 out of 1535 fossil units have FGD
– 101.648 GW scrubbed of 411.840 GW total
– Increase in capacity from 21.39% to 24.68%
from 1994 to 2005 .

http://www.topsoe.com/sitecore/shell/Applications/~/media/PDF%20files/Topsoe_Catalysis_Forum/2007/Hower.ashx

So there is another 1200 power plant in the US that will require what Dalhousie already has.
Seems there must be some value for the station in the future.


All the information I read says that more and more station will be getting scrubbers added. And the costs are rising substantially.

Let's throw out this idea. Nova Scotia Power has coal fired stations. With NO scrubbers. Some day they will be forced to clean up their act. Why not get them to capatilize the cost of converting the Dalhousie station back to coal. Then NB Power can just do a power purchase agreement with NS Power. They supply fuel, NB Power supplies them electricity. NS Power clean up their act somewhat and Dalhousie runs till the end of its useful life. It's evident from the information out there, that there is no miracle cure for the increasing demand for electricity. It's going to take a lot of efficiency, and a lot of wind and solar to offset the demand for the traditional power plant.
.
.
.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Self Sufficiency

I see the political crying is still ongoing in the Newspapers. Where the was apparently no problem with NB Power 6 months ago, there is a near bankcruptcy today. At least according to the spin doctors.

Now everyone from Keir to the new NB Power CEO is looking for ideas on how to save the province.

Check this one out. This is true self sufficiency.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/03/district-heating-and-beyond?cmpid=WNL-Friday-March26-2010

Seems a litle more reasonable than paying a banker or some private invester $100 a MW hour for windturbine. I beleive the community energy initiative is a good idea, but for a community to barely make 2 or 3% profit (if that) on windmill, and basically create no local jobs, seems like a stretch. And a far cry for self sufficiency.

This is also self sufficiency, but to bad our feeble provincial government, who has as much debt as Irving has assets, has to loan them a few million to do it.

http://www.jdirving.com/article.aspx?id=1904
.
.
I don't know if this is self sufficiency, but apparently dumping 10's of millions of millions of dollars year after year into pulp mills in the normal thing to do.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/09/30/nb-mill-grant.html

And more grant money here. http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/02/22/pulp-mills-invest-in-energy-efficiency-biorefinery-projects/

Does it ever end? Did these companies ever stand on their own? It seems they may as well become crown corporations as well so we can regulate them.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Unacceptable Risk Edition

When I'm short on ideas, I just steal them. This one is from facebook. Thanks Willie.

"If you want to find out what the government of Quebec's reasoning for the demise of the deal check out Spin Reduxit podcast: The Unacceptable Risk Edition: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/spinreduxit_20100325_29778.mp3
The first five to ten minutes are good, especially at the four minute mark!"


In my opinion, I still think the public outrage is mostly responsible for the deal being called off. As much as the politicians are saying that Quebec did not want to accept the risk of Mactaquac, dam and the turbine rotor problems at Lepreau, if there was public support for the deal, the government would have accepted the risk and carried on. But contrary, as the 10 issues that Keir mentions were dealt with, with the last one being risk, because NB Citizens did not support the deal, if the government would have signed off on the deal, and the truth come out later, it would have spelled the end of the liberal party forever. Right now, the will just be wiped out for an election or two.
.
.
.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

What a wishy washy government we have

Seems the graham government has changed it's tone again. The last time the changed their tone, and a few sublte words, resulted in MOU 2.

http://www.oilweek.com/news.asp?ID=27463

Maybe this deal will be better than the "best deal ever" MOU1, or was it MOU 2. I can't remember what's what with this government.

Even the world's most famous dictator doesn't trust this government. ( My opologies upfront, as this may offend some viewers) but it does send a message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXbn_EZP9o0

I was not able to attend the rally in Fredericton, but my applause to all those that attended. The message may be getting through.

.
.
.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Vermont signs deal with Hydro Quebec

Check out the new deal Hydro Quebec signed with Vermont.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5ihTPtAOQ3FO-ucYN98LrPCz6f4Fg

At 4.5 cents/kw hr, it's a quite bit cheaper than the deal signed here.

If this deal was signed here, versus the 7.35 cents/kwhr NB signed, the savings per year would be:

250MW x 8760 hours per year x $45 / megawatt hour = $98,550,000 per year

250MW x 8760 hours per year x $73.50 / megawatt hour = 161,000,000 per year

The difference is roughly $62,000,000 per year.

If NB was to sign a PPA contract for say, the amount that could be brought through the HVDC ties, lets say three times that amount. So 750 MW.

The difference between the the Vermont price, and Grahams price, would be difference of
$186 Million per year.

Multiplty that over the 26 years that the Vermont contract is good for, and you have a savings of $4.8 Billion. This seems to be very close the value that the NERA report says NBer's will save over 40 years. In fact over 40 years, this deal would save us $7.44 Billion.
.
.
.
.Great negotiations on the part of the NB Government. (sense the sarcasm)
.
.
.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Community Energy

I attended the community energy presentation in Dalhousie last night.

There were 20 people in attendence.

Three from NB Power as support for questions and answers concerning the NB Power involvement.

One person from Department of Environment. Again for support in case your wind power site involves a river crossing or may endanger a wild bird or rare plants.

Three government employees who are to act as liasons for anyone interested in trying to make money off this deal.

The main presenter was Carl Brothers, who I beleive ran the wind test site on PEI for 25 years. He is quite knowledgable in wind power. His current company is Frontier Power Systems.

If I counted right, there were three other government employees in attendance.

I didn't see Jack Kier. Unless he snuck in and never said anything.

The hotel owner came down to listen.

One representative of the Papineau First Nation was in attendence and asking some good questions.

So, besides me, that left 5 other people there to see what it was all about.

All in all, in was a good presentation. Some of the material I had seen before. NB Power does have a really good reference document on their site if you wish to get into the power generating business.

If you are approached to have a wind tower put on your property, it certainly seems that you will be looked after in terms of sound and visual "flicker". Seems you can ask for several thousand dollars per year for leasing out your land.

The theme seemed to involve only the big wind turbines though. The 1.5 to 3 MW kind. These are over 400 feet tall, and involves cranes that will cost tens of thousands of dollars per day to rent.
Summerside was used as an example for a typical installation. They spent $28 million to install four turbines that will produce 12 MW. The economics didn't seem that attractive, but they did get $21 in various government funding that may it work quite well.

Nedless to say, anyone wishing to get into this venture, will need several millions just to take a look.

If you want to see who all is serious, check out the government website in May. Your request for Expression of Interest will be posted for all to see.

http://www.gnb.ca/0085/Community/Index-e.asp
.
.
.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Ineptitude

Ineptitude as defined by Miriam Webster online dictionary:

Main Entry: in·ep·ti·tude
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i-ˈnep-tə-ˌtüd, -ˌtyüd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin ineptitudo, from ineptus
Date: 1615
: the quality or state of being inept; especially : incompetence

Incompetence as defined by Miriam Webster online dictionary:

Main Entry: in·com·pe·tence
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)in-ˈkäm-pə-tən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 1663
: the state or fact of being incompetent

Incompetent as defined by Miriam Webster online dictionary:

Main Entry: in·com·pe·tent
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)in-ˈkäm-pə-tənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French incompétent, from in- + compétent competent
Date: 1595
1 : not legally qualified
2 : inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose
3 a : lacking the qualities needed for effective action b : unable to function properly

Incompetent seems to fit pretty good with the definition most New Brunswickers would give to the current premier and the minister of energy.

The little announcemnt today by Keir stating that he asked NB Power not to raise power rates 3% on April Fools day, seems to follow the theme. Maybe we should re-name it SHACK day. After SHawn and jACK. Only NBer's would get it, but that' enough.

For months we've heard about how the big bad wolf NB Power will raise electricity rates by 5 Tim's coffees per month, and that SHACK will need to save us all from the big bad wolf by giving away NB Power. Well, I guess just the profitable parts.
But noooo....Today, all of a sudden, the minister of energy realized he has the authority to tell NB Power not to raise rates. Actually I guess it was way back on February 5th. Just goes to show how well he does his job. As minister of energy, he has the single vote on what NB Power can do. At least that is the way I read it.
http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/annual/EngCombined.pdf page 32


Who's truly been fear mongering? Well, I gues SHACK doesn't count, because no one beleives anything that comes out their mouth's anyway.

I had the opportunity to have a one on one with a First Nation Cheif last week. The information he told me was quite surprising. Apparently all the First Nations had a meeting with the province just about two weeks ago. By the province I mean SHACK and their cohorts and other provincial beaurocrats. The topic, Consultation and Accomodation.

For those who may need to read up on their history, here are a few links.

Some of this you may have read in the papers and online, but basically The Supreme Court of Canada rulings make it law that First Nations must be consulted and accommodated before provincial governments can do anything of signifigance with Crown land that will/may affect a First Nation.

http://www.thedutytoconsult.com/

http://www.fsin.com/index.php/legal-agreements-a-legislation.html

http://www.fngovernance.org/pdf/NCFNG_Crown_Consultation_and_Practices.pdf

Basically selling the Hydro system affects Tobique and Woodstock. There apparently doesn't have to have been any prior written agreement about the issue for the consulatation process to begin. Just the fact that there are old treaties between the Aboriginal peoples and the Government seems to be what the Supreme court is upholding.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruling that is making this happen started in 2004. It seems to have progressed since with some wording written in the last year. This is a copy of the ruling:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc73/2004scc73.html

I guess the NB gov had not officially acknowleged this Supreme Court Ruling until this meeting two weeks ago, but I guess it is law.

Shawns acknowledgment included trying to buy the NB First Nations with a large block of free power to do with as they wish.

The offer was refused. So the consultation was done, but the accomdation not completed.

Graham also sat with all the NB Cheifs in 2007 and signed a bilateral agreement. http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/news/aaf/2007e0807aa.htm

But I was told Graham hasn't honoured a single word of it. Seems none of the Cheifs are happy with Graham.

"A new era in Aboriginal-provincial relations has been ushered in with the signing of the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, Province of New Brunswick Relationship Building Bilateral Agreement in a ceremony at the Legislative Assembly in Fredericton .
The ceremony began with a traditional pipe ceremony and blessing from Maliseet and Mi'kmaq elders,as well as a gift presented to the elders by Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour Minister Ed Doherty, Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

"Our new relationship will be one of respect, good faith and partnership -- one where we will work together to reconcile First Nations and Crown issues and jurisdictions from this day forward."
Shawn Graham
Premier

So where does all this lead to. Not sure, but maybe the rumours about the deal getting squashed this Friday may have some backing????

Only time will tell.

And for those that were wondering where I was, I took a small break. I was away for a few days, and am now watching some Olympics. And as bad as I want to comment on the "Own the Podium", I just wish to say good luck to all the athletes. I know there are no NBer's there, except for the American speedskater, but Good Luck to all the athletes, and may their dreams come true. http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/948317

Monday, February 8, 2010

The post has no subject

I'm currently at a loss for an entry. But.....

I could write about democracy on life support in this province, but politics is something I don't seem to do well with. As a technical person, I don't get it, when it comes to someone pushing for power at the sake of someone suffering. I don't think that's most peoples desire when entering politics, but some seem to succomb to it at some point in their career. But not all. Thankfully.
But I will leave that subject to the unbiased newspapers, the political scientists, and other acedemics who enjoy the art of bashing politicians. "VOILA"

I could elaborate on a post a freind of mine put on Shawn Graham's Lower Rates site.

"Quebec is one of the worst environmental actors in North America. They do not care about being “Green” they only care about the “Green” in their pockets.

Proof below: (Charest why don’t you answer)

1) Quebec is blocking 3,000 MW of CO2 reducing hydro power from being developed by NFLD and Lab. If Quebec really cared about CO2 reduction, they would be helping NL develope this resource – instead of blocking it

2) Read the news this week – Charest did not want to respond to why Quebec is killing people in the 3rd world by exporting Asbestos to them. Charest basically said that it is not Quebec’s problem if people in the 3rd world die. All he cares about the “Green” in his pocket, not about people or the environment.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/charest-pilloried-over-asbestos-exports-at-delhi-summit/article1458216/

And remember he says “A contract is a Contract”. You better hope that Shawn is the world’s best contract person – because “Forever is Forever”."

Think about that. If Canada had a real National Energy Policy, NL would be energy self sufficient, just like Quebec. With some left to spare to the rest of the Maritimes. Maybe we could convert some of it to hydrogen, and ship it to BC for the Vancouver transit commision to run their fleet of hydrogen powered buses. 61% less emmisions from a hydrogen powered bus than a regular bus. But, I thought hydogen was clean? Apparently the big diesels transports that bring it from Trois Riveire, QC, to BC are not. http://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/pique/index.php?content=Feature+1704. It's a super long article. I couldn't read it all.

I could talk about how our nieghbours, yes HQ, and NS are promoting energy conservation.
http://www.nspower.ca/en/home/residential/homeheatingproducts/default.aspx
It's amazing what gets born out of necesity.


I could talk about how big a part natural gas plays generating electricity now in North America.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html

Not that I beleive the EIA is the most unbiased source of information when it comes to projections, but for historical purposes, their data should be good.

Natural Gas was responsible for generating 21% of the electricity produced in the United States in 2008. The volume used to do that was about 7,000,000 million cubic feet of gas. That is 7 trillion cubic feet of gas.

If you go to Corridor Resources website. http://www.corridor.ca/oil-gas-exploration/new-brunswick.html That's one of the companies with a big interest in NB natural gas.

If you look down the page, you will see this statement :
"Calgary based consultants GLJ have estimated a 59.1 trillion cubic feet (tcf) (net to Corridor) gas-in-place resource in the Frederick Brook formation in the Sussex and Elgin sub-basins. If only 10 percent of these resources are commercially recoverable, it provides a significant target for these shale gas exploration, appraisal and completion operations."

59 Trillion divided by 7 Trillion is about 8 and a half. Lets call it 8. The natural gas feild between Saint John and Moncton has the potential to supply 21 % of the US electricty production market for 8 years. Or 10% for 16 years, or 5% for 32 years, or 1 % for 160 years.

US Natural gas generators , in terms of MW capacity, are over 100 times larger than ALL NB Power combined.

With that simple math, the natural gas feild in NB, could potentially supply all of the "heritage pool" electricity requirements for 160 years.

I'll leave it up to you to do any other combination that might tickle your fancy. And do double check my math, because both Shawn Graham and Frank McKenna have publically said there are no fossil fuel resources in NB.


Here's Shawn:

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NB/ID=1379331595 1 minute 13 seconds into video.

Here's Frank:

http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-01-24T04%3A41%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7

But, maybe I'll just go research another conspiracy theory.
.
.
.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Another one bites the dust

"New Brunswick's tourism and parks minister has been pushed out of Premier Shawn Graham's cabinet in a dispute over the controversial sale of parts of NB Power.Stuart Jamieson said in a statement Friday night that he was asked by the Liberal premier to tender his resignation after saying the deal with Hydro-Québec should be put to a public referendum."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/02/05/nb-jamieson-resignation.html?ref=rss


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

Quotes about the firing:

"Michelle: That's my dad!!! Whohooo!!! I will share your comments with him... he truly is and always will be my hero no matter what happens. :)"


"I am an elected official (City Councilor) in Fredericton, NB and I
make it a PRIORITY to have the people get an opportunity to be heard. I
am a "spokesperson" for the people of my area. As for... Minister
Jamieson, he was just that as well, a "spokesperson" for the people. If
you are an "elected official, whether it be Municipal, Provincial, or
Federal and you are fired because you want the "people" have an
opportunity to be heard, then perhaps the person that fired you should
be the one that is fired.

I am very disappointed in Premier Graham.

Councilor David Kelly

Fredericton, New Brunswick"



"Posted at TJ: Congratulations to Mr. Jamieson. He is right and solidarity should be with the citizens of NB NOT the caucus. Government is NOT a business and their role is to represent the interests of the citizens NOT to act like the board of directors of a corporation. If Stuart Jamieson crossed the floor today he wou...ld be demonstrating his belief that OUR politicians should represent the interests of the citizens of New Brunswick NOT big business and other interests."


"Yes you are indeed a true credit Mr. Jamieson you have done more to restore my faith in democracy then you will ever know. Now if only a few others will step up and do likewise!"

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Honestly Folks

I'm truly getting a little tired of this whole political bullshit. Pardon my language. I normally don't go there, but I just watched Keirs speech on the lower rates website.

Then I read this: http://www.wqdy.fm/2010_02_01_archive.html#4961293685474875861

Amazing that residential customers in NB have to subsidize industry by about 30%, while the NEW NB Power sells power to residential customers in Maine for up to 19% less.

Seems the standard rate exactly matches the MOU rate, and starts April 1.

Watch this video. Just sing along and replace "Obomaman" with "graham cracker man"
and substitute any of the mentioned large US bailout corportations with any of your hometown favorites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhhkF3dqXR0

Anybody know any good lawyers. LOL

Five years to get off the grid folks.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Could this be the real Sale Time Line ??

The liberal Government has been kind enough to tell that the negotiations with Quebec started way back last winter about this time.

Hydro Quebec has been kind enough to tell us how well, or poorly compared to last year, their company has been doing through their Strategic Plan and quarterly reports posted on their website. http://www.hydroquebec.com/publications/en/quarterly_report/index.html

The New England System Operator has been kind enough to post through their website the average daily open market electricity prices. If you poke around this site long enough, you can gather the historical price paid. http://www.iso-ne.com/markets/hstdata/index.html

The data in the graph presented is the NB - Maine intertie data.

The reasoning I have talked about before. http://nbpowermemorandumofunderstanding.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-view.html

This is just a graphical presentation. Enjoy. I think it's pretty dramatic presented this way.
Oh, I seem to have issues with spreadsheets in the blog format. Click on the graph and it will open a new page with all the data easily readable.



Monday, February 1, 2010

the Advisory Panel Report

I have not completely read this yet, but for those who may be looking for the Ganong Panel Report, here it is in it's full glory.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/final-advisory-panel-report-eng.pdf

My observations:

The panel seems on the ball with the Lepreau deferral:

"The Panel recognized that the Lepreau deferral account
is an issue both in the business as usual case and if the
Proposal is implemented. The concern is when the costs
will be recovered in the rates. The Panel recommends that
the costs associated with this deferral account should
begin to be applied to rates in the first year of the Proposal term rather than being deferred thus reducing interest charges on the deferred debt and mitigating a larger rate increase in sixth year after the plant restarts."


This statement I have an issue with :

"However, should the restarting of Lepreau be unsuccessful or extended for some time, replacement electricity supply will be needed.
The guarantee of lower cost replacement electricity supply under the HPS would reduce the cost compared to replacement supply from the open electricity market. It is unlikely that any electricity producer bidding into the regional electricity market would be lower in price than the guaranteed HPS from Hydro-Québec under the Proposal."

I think the reason the Quebec government even made an offer to Graham to buy when he did go there looking for cheaper rates, is because the price of natural gas dropped like a rock, (see my earlier post on that subject) and HQ is left holding the bag for $25 billlion in captal expenditures, and doesn't have a customer anymore. This is even talked about in the report. but they didn't see that open market rates available from the US because natural genration is so cheap, are currently about 40% lower than the proposed heritage pool rate.


Keir disagrees with this statement:

"NB Power would be left to service the debt of only the transmission and distribution companies and the deferral account. This debt should be sufficiently serviced by revenue from rates."

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/938069

They brought up Grand Lake again. Everyone knows it was going to close, so why give credit to any emmissions savings.

It's too bad they just seem to rehash the same NERA and MacQuarrie Consulting numbers.
I don't know if that's really due diligence.

They did tell the government to keep their fingers out of the pie, though.

Anyway, I'm off to finish reading it. Goodnight Folks.
.
.
.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

More numbers on the Value of Point Lepreau

My previous post on the value of Pt. Lepreau contained data taken from Hydro Quebec Strategic Plan. Keir seems to be saying that Pt. Lepreau is not worth $10 Billion Dollars.

Maybe not, but it is worth something to HQ.

Lets assume the refurbishment stays on budget. Actually I guess it doesn't matter how much the refurb costs. HQ is only paying $1.4 billion.

The projected run time is 28 years. $1.4 billion dollars amortized over 28 years at an interest rate of 6% is an annual payment of $104,000,000 dollars.

Working backwards from the HQ information presented for Lepreau's sister station Gentilly 2, the capacity factor seems to work out to about 86%.

A 635 MW net output multiplied by 365 days per years x 24 hours per day x an 86% capacity factor is 4,810,000 MW hours per year. This compares with the historical number printed in the NB Power annual reports.

4,810,000 MW hours per years multiplied by the rate that HQ will receive ($73.50 MW hr)
gives an annual revenue of $ 353,600,000 dollars.

Multipled by 28 years give a value of $9,902,000,000 dollars. (that's 9.9 billion) Similair number to what HQ presents in their strategic report for Gentilly 2. All in current dollars.

Nuclear fuel costs seem to be less than $20 milion per year. see page 28 . http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/annual/Annual_Report07-08-.pdf

Total cost of Lepreau decommisioning and used fuel liabilites is shown as $1.5 billion dollars. page 52 of same document. Assuming I'm reading it correctly.

Lets say property taxes are $1.1 per hundred like your house??, valued on the $1.4 billion purchase price. This is $15.4 million per year.

Operation and maintainence expenses. Thought I seen this somewhere at about 66 million per years, but location eludes me now. Lets use the 800 employess getting paid on average about $80 K per years. That is $64,000,000 in salaries. Lets add half that again for other regulatory stuff, toilet paper, pens, nuclear reactors parts, etc. So lets make O&M a $100 million per year.

So on a yearly basis, we have $353 million revenue - $104 interest charges - $100 million O&M - $20 million fuel - $54 million per year put away for decommisioning and waste fuel storage costs - $16 property taxes.

Total yearly profit projected at $59 million. Total over 28 years is $1.65 billion.

Does the risk of Lepreau not running, or of having technical issues after it is running (HQ risk), versus the risk of the station never completing the refurbishment (NB Gov risk) equal 1.65 billion dollars? Maybe if anyone thought selling was a good idea, maybe the purchase price should have been the refurbishment cost. Then the risk would truly be taken off of NB Power and New Brunswickers.

As a side note, based on the above analysis, the breakeven point for Pt. Lepreau to generate electricity if the refurbishment cost is $1.4 Billion, is 6.1 cents per kw hour. Lower than NB Power's current industrial rate, and therefore seemingly profitable.

Of course, I'm not an economist, or own a large corporation, I'm just doing my own due diligence.
.
.
.
.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

What questions should the "Blue Ribbon Panel" address??

Seen this on everyone's favorite social media website. I grabbed it to post here, because it is worth posting and it will fade away soon on that site. Credits go to Betty.


"I heard that the ‘blue ribbon panel’ report on the proposed sale of NB Power to Hydro-Quebec will be released Feb1.

I will be very disappointed unless this report addresses as a minimum the following issues:

-lists the experts consulted in the preparation of the report... See More

-explains why the public was not given the opportunity to make submissions

-an honest comparison of the proposed sale and NB Power’s strategic plan (not the ‘status quo’ the government keeps referring to as no intelligent executive would plan to indefinitely refurbish and rebuild existing generation assets)

-calculations showing the expected revenue and costs of the retained transmission system proving it will be sustainable

-fair valuation of generation assets and transmission rights being sold

-rationale for the cost per kilowatts hour in the ‘energy agreement’ (power is currently purchased from Hydro-Quebec for less than half that, and is also currently available on the open market for about 2/3 of that)

-rationale for the limit of the heritage pool

-all costs, fees, payments in lieu of taxes, etc currently paid by NB Power to the provincial government and how that revenue will be replaced when it is lost through this agreement

-total cost of this deal including foregone revenue currently received from NB Power, pension costs, subsidy to local utilities (Saint John Energy, etc), costs of expected lost positions and spin offs, etc

-estimate of power rate increases after five years

-valuation of carbon credits which Minister Keir says aren’t worth much but also says to retain them would have to give up, for example, five year rate freeze (his words)

-the effect on ratepayers of the decommissioning of Belledune and Coleson Cove (which will be operated under the direction and control of Hydro-Quebec who has the option to request their shut down)

-whether Hydro-Quebec has any residual interest (as in the original MOU) in Belledune and Coleson Cove after they are directed to shut-down (the fluctuating price of oil is a concern but these plants could without excess effort be converted to natural gas and they do have state of the art scrubbers which seems to be ignored)

-explains why a long term power purchase agreement with Hydro-Quebec was not considered as an option

Citizens have very serious concerns about the ability of the members of this advisory panel to be truly objective and free of bias. Unless this report truly addresses the broad spectrum of concerns raised concerning this proposed sale it will have accomplished little."

.Possibly she is the same person who wrote this as well.
http://savenbpower.blogspot.com/2010/01/analysing-unanalysible-inside-power.html


.
.
.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Sometimes you just have too......

I'm not much for political jokes, or the type of joke I'm posting, so my apologies up front, but sometimes you just have to bend the rules a little................



During a recent password audit at our company, it was found that a blonde receptionist was using the following password:

"MickeyMinniePlutoHueyLouieDeweyDonaldGoofyOttawa"

When asked why she had such a long password, she said she was told that it had to be at least eight characters long and include at least one capital.

One Auditor then commented to the other, " I'm surprised that the receptionist knew that Ottawa was a capital."

Huh, " That 's nothing, " said the other Auditor in return.

"I'm surprised she knew the names of Graham's cabinet ministers"
.
.
.
.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

These are emotional times we live in

These are emotional times we live in.

If anyone has been following the Mark Gallagher story, it has to touch you somehow. Unless maybe you’re a cold hearted politician. I was quite moved this morning listening to the CBC and the words spoken by his widow and fellow workers who pulled him from the rubble in Haiti. When they spoke of presenting his Stetson to his son, I was quite choked up thinking of my sons and the limited time I spend with them because of the way society has become today. Some things for the better, some things for the worse.

The reports of emotional breakouts, or maybe breakdowns, by politicians when they are confronted with citizens voicing their opinion on the sale of NB Power is another subject that has touched the hearts of many. It is no longer a topic of technical details and how much one province will gain or another will lose. It has become a topic if integrity, democracy, and emotion. If the merits of the deal could be sold on their technical or financial ramifications then I imagine the government would. But the fact that the public at large is no longer privy to the details, changes the focus from the why, to the why not. From how come we need to sell NB Power, to how come we can’t see the details.

Is the truth that gory that we can’t handle it? Will the whole of the NB economy collapse with the status quo, or some semblance of it, kept at NB Power? Have all of the largest employers in the province given their two weeks notice that they are moving on, and this is a last ditch effort to keep them here? The citizens want to know why you are changing their status quo. The information presented for public viewing is short on depth and foresight. Long on smoke and mirrors. All of the technical details go against the platform that the current government campaigned on, they go against the economic strategy espoused by even the minister of energy one short year ago, and they go against the environmental plan published since this government came into power. And the government can’t claim that they didn’t know the financial situation at NB Power and only found out the details recently. They apparently never consulted with anyone at NB Power during this whole process anyway. So the whole deal was seemingly done by reading publicly available financial statements, consulting former elected officials, and consulting with an “expert”. They never gave the board of directors the directions to change NB Power. Even worse, the negotiation team for NB Brunswick went to Quebec with a political mandate that does not match the direction given to NB Power, and negotiated against the full force of one of the biggest utilities in the world, and thought they came home with “the best deal for New Brunswickers”. Obviously the best deal for HQ, but how would we ever know if it’s the best deal for NB. We don’t truly know why it was done. The technical details given are so full of holes, it’s hard to know where to start in the analysis. Using poor little 50 year old soon to close Grand Lake plant as the basis for the environmental benefits, is about as accurate as using a modern day politician as a poster boy for integrity. Go T.J.! A year ago the Eider Rock refinery was going to save the province and put NB on the map as a force to reckon with. The greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be nearly equal to the GHG of NB Power, but were considered “not of significance”.

We are a have not province. We will remain a have not province because of weak political leadership, and the single minded direction of big business in this province. Maybe the status quo is not an option. Maybe we should let all big business go bankrupt. Let them all close down, and make them all turn their facilities into green fields. Then we can take back all the rights and ownership to all the forestry sector, all the mineral rights, and all the energy rights. Then we can start all over retaining ownership, or at least a decent royalty rate for any of these things. Tell Fraser’s when they close their doors that they will give up all their lease holdings that covers a large part of the northern part of the province. They will be here for awhile.

Just think of all the jobs that would be created by decommissioning all those facilities. Think of all the jobs created by rebuilding all the infrastructure required to process all the natural resources of the province. Just a ridiculous idea isn’t it. About as ridiculous as refurbishing a nuclear station, and then giving it away for the refurbishment price, while someone else makes $10 Billion from it during the next 25 or so years.

Being is seeing in the human dimension. And what we see is highly interrelated to what we are. We can’t go very far to change our seeing without simultaneously changing our being, and vice versa.

If this deal is ever legislated and passed as written, democracy will be dead in this province, and serfdom reborn.
.
.
.

Monday, January 25, 2010

How much is Pt. Lepreau worth to HQ

We know Pt. Lepreau is only worth $1.4 billion to the current government that is going to sell it. Sorry, I guess I should say - sold. But how much do you think Hydro Quebec thinks it worth?

The Candu nuclear station at Pt Lepreau is a sister station to the Gentilly 2 near Montreal, Quebec. Check out the information form the CANDU website.

Pt. Lepreau is a Candu - 6 with a net capacity of 635 MW. http://www.candu.org/nbpower.html
Gentily 2 is a Candu - 6 with a net capacity of 635 MW. http://www.candu.org/hydroquebec.html

Hydro Quebec plans to overhaul it's nuclear station after AECL is done with Pt. Lepreau. Obviously a good move, given the AECL hiccups at Pt. Lepreau. But Lepreau was the first Candu6 commissioned, so only stands to reason that it is the first to be overhauled. HQ has a team at Lepreau learning the ins and outs of a nuclear station retrofit. Good idea, eh?

HQ has budgeted $1.9 Billion for their retrofit. Not sure why it's more, but could be they factored in more risk, or seen what was happening at Lepreau and updated their projections, or maybe they have more contamination and need to spend more money to complete the work safely??

Anyway, if you take a took at HQ's strategic plan on page 35, you will see some financial numbers published there. It's quite a large document. http://www.hydroquebec.com/publications/en/strategic_plan/index.html

I have copied the text pertaining to the monetary value that HQ places on Gentilly 2 here:

"A competitive cost:

During its second life cycle, which will extend from the end of 2012 until
2040, Gentilly-2 will generate nearly 135 billion kilowatthours of reliable,
non-intermittent, zero-emission power. This output represents nearly
$10 billion in constant 2012 dollars, based on a unit cost of 7.2¢/kWh (also
in constant 2012 dollars).
This competitive cost, which was a determining factor in the decision
to go ahead with the refurbishment, corresponds to the difference
between the discounted cash flows of the following two scenarios: the
scenario of a 2011 retirement, which called for operations and output to
end in March 2011, and the refurbishment scenario, which factored in
the $1.9-billion investment required, plus operating and maintenance
costs until 2040. In both cases, all costs of dismantling the generating
station and removing spent fuel were taken into account. The difference
between the scenarios is thus essentially attributable to the start
date of the decommissioning phase (2011 versus 2040)."

$ 10,000,000,000 Dollars. That's 10 Billion dollars.

That is an all inclusive value. I didn't make up the words. That's from the day the refurbishment starts, to the day it becomes a field with a plaque saying a nuclear station once lived here. ALL INCLUSIVE.

Yeah, But how much power is 135 billion kilowatt hours. It's 135 TW hours. So, with the assumption that Lepreau and Gentilly are sister stations overhauled by the same company, The AECL who design, sell, build, and refurbish nuclear reactors. Then, one could assume that the reactors will have the same (or very similair) life span and operating capacity after they are overhauled.

What does this mean. HQ plans to run Gentilly 2 for 28 years after overhaul. If Lepreau can produce the same power over the same years it will also produce 135 TW hours of electricity.
That 135 TW of electricity is worth almost $10 Billion dollars (9.7 actually) to HQ, but only worth $1.4 Billion to NB Government. And 135 TW is almost 10 years of NB heritage pool supply.

NB Power will be LEGISLATED to buy the same 135 TW of power from a station it already had paid $1.4 Billion to have overhauled.

135 TW at the fixed rate in the amended MOU, is worth $9.9 Billion dollars. This is before all rate increases get applied. And apparently an MLA in Bathurst today felt a little pressured as the result of a local protest, and spit out that the year 6 rate increase will be 8.5%.

Total loss to NB = $9.9 Billion dollars plus the other 1/2 billion less that NB Power plans to spend on it's refurb = $10.4 Billion . And that's only if HQ has it written in it's contract to pay to decommission it after they are done with it. Maybe it will be more.

I wouldn't want to be the politician that has to carry the legacy of this deal on my families name for as long as the deal lasts. Oh yeah, that's for ETERNITY.
.
.
.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Survey says?

Someone I know just spent 10 minutes answering an extremely detailed telephone survey on the HQ\NB Power deal:

1) It covered each aspect of the new deal, asking were you were supportive or not supportive of each part of it - keeping T&D, selling Hydro and Nuclear, debt reduction, etc.

2) Do you consider NB Power debt as New Brunswick debt and does it worry you?

3) Do you like the new deal better than the first deal?

4) In general, do you like NB Power, do you like Hydro Quebec?

5) Is it important for NB to retain full control over power generation. Does it make you uneasy losing provincial control?

6) What is your overall feeling about the government (not just the deal, all aspects)? This was asked at the first of the survey. Then at the end of the survey they asked how the deal made you feel about the government. More or less supportive. So they were trying to separate out how the deal affected your thinking about the government.

7) How important is it to have low industrial rates to attract industry for new job?

8) How important was the residential 5 year freeze and the estimated $465 "savings" per customer that heats with electricity?

***Near the end was a question - would you support a deal that allowed HQ to move power thru NB? Are they were feeling out if the public would support a deal that only involved expanded transmission rights????

Unlike most telephone surverys - if the answer did not fit the standard answers, they actually asked for an answer and the person who told me about this could hear it being typed in. This is not the usual way these surveys were done.

This persons' view was that this was an extremely well designed survey, all the questions were correct for separating out someone's thoughts on each aspect of the deal, future possible changes and opinion on the government. This person would say it might be a Hill-Knowlton designed survey.

Seems a little strange that a government that has concluded negotiations and finalized a deal, would be out gathering public opinion????

Friday, January 22, 2010

Fitch Rates Hydro-Quebec

Got this today. Interesting. The new deal for the sale is seen as positive for Quebec.

Fitch Rates Hydro-Quebec's Expanded Medium Term Note Program 'AA-
'; Outlook Stable
NEW YORK, Jan 21, 2010 -- BUSINESS WIRE
Fitch Ratings assigns an 'AA-' to Hydro-Quebec's (HQ) expanded medium term note program. HQ received approval from the government of Quebec to increase the maximum size of its medium term note program from $16 billion to $20 billion. Fitch also affirms the following HQ ratings:
--Long-term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) at 'AA-';
--Short-term IDR at 'F1+';
--$35.5 billion unsecured debentures and medium term notes at 'AA-';
--Commercial paper at 'F1+'.
The Rating Outlook is Stable.
SECURITY
Payment of HQ debt is supported by a pledge of the net revenues of the consolidated HQ system. HQ debt is further secured by an unconditional payment guarantee by the Province of Quebec (rated 'AA-', Stable Outlook by Fitch).
RATING RATIONALE
--HQ's ratings are heavily driven by support provided under the unconditional and irrevocable guarantee from HQ's sole owner - the government of Quebec.
--On a stand alone basis, HQ is a low cost integrated utility, with historically strong financial metrics and favorably 'green' hydroelectric generating resources.
--While the mainly hydropower resource base is subject to output variability due to hydrological conditions, HQ's substantial reservoirs help to mitigate this risk.
--HQ's regulated distribution and transmission divisions continue to receive fair treatment from the provincial regulatory authority, La Regie de L'Energie.
--HQ is in the midst of a very large capital program ($C25 billion through 2013) to add new hydroelectric and transmission projects. Through the construction period, financial measures will tighten but should remain adequate for
the rating category.
--The rating takes into account HQ recently proposed $C3.2 billion acquisition of a neighboring provincial utility, New
Brunswick Power (NBP). Favorably, HQ will acquire NBP's quality generation assets as well as firm transmission rights into New England.
KEY RATING DRIVERS
--The credit rating of the Province of Quebec - HQ's sole shareholder and guarantor of HQ debt.
--Construction risks associated with build out of several large hydroelectric and transmission projects and HQ generation division's ability to manage growing revenue volatility associated with planned increase in export power sales.
CREDIT SUMMARY
Since 2009, HQ has embarked on a major, roughly $C25 billion capital program through 2013. The capital plan includes the construction of several large hydropower projects, transmission additions and distribution system
upgrades. The projects are in varying stages of development and continue to meet important milestones and commissioning dates. By 2013, HQ is projecting to have another 1000 megawatts (MW) of new hydro-generating capacity online (compared to existing capacity of 36,429 MW for 2008). While a portion of the new generation is
needed to meet modest native load growth, an increasing proportion will be used for export (offsystem) sales.
Offsystem sales are typically subject to greater volume and price volatility (not based on a regulated tariff). Positively, given the increasing global demand, particularly in the U.S. and Canada, for non-carbon emitting and renewable power
resources, HQ's 'green' hydropower exports should remain a valuable and marketable resource for the foreseeable future.
Lastly, with respect to the proposed acquisition of NBP, HQ is acquiring quality 'green' generating assets and another
transmission interconnection into New England, which lends support to HQ's plan to increase export power sales.
Included in the generating assets to be acquired is NBP's Point Lepreau Nuclear Plant, currently being refurbished. HQ does not assume any liabilities with respect to the nuclear facility until refurbishment is completed and that portion of
the acquisition is closed on or about Jan. 1, 2011. HQ will make two payments totaling $C3.2 billion; the first ($C1.8
billion) due on or about March 31, 2010 and the remainder due at the time of closing of the Point Lepreau nuclear transaction. HQ will also maintain a long term wholesale power supply arrangement to serve NBP's customers at a
favorable, but fixed price for the first five years of the contract. Thereafter, the wholesale power contract prices will adjust according to the New Brunswick consumer price index.

Positively, the acquisition price has declined to $C3.2 billion from the original estimate of $C4.75 billion. The acquisition is projected to be positive for HQ earnings within the first year, and will not materially change HQ's debt
position. Equity to total capitalization will fall to the 30% level through the construction period (to 2013), but should remain adequate for the rating category.
HQ is a vertically integrated electric system providing electric service to virtually all of the province of Quebec, Canada, or 3.9 million customers. HQ is comprised of four operating segments: power production, transmission,
distribution, and equipment/construction divisions. HQ's power facilities include installed generating capacity totaling 36,429 MW and over 33,000 kilometers of transmission lines, placing HQ among the largest electricity systems in
North America.
Applicable criteria available on Fitch's website at 'www.fitchratings.com' includes:
--Revenue Supported Rating Criteria, (Dec. 29, 2009).
--Public Power Rating Guidelines, (June 11, 2009).
Additional information is available at www.fitchratings.com.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Oh My, Where to start?

The new deal? Wow. A whole two pages. I guess Graham didn't want us getting confused and emotional like the last time. Keep it simple for us this time. Less information to digest and analyze and ultimately rip apart and criticize. Thanks Graham, for trying to be thoughtful, but no thanks. Your lolli pop sucks. Ha Ha. I thought it was funny.

I don't think much has really changed from the original MOU. Except that it is even better for Quebec. Charest already stated that fact. It still uses up their 8.5 TW surplus, and they saved $1.5 Billion in the process. NB gives up all it's clean sources of generation, which will provide over 50% in the provinces needs, and will pay $1 Billion per year to buy it back. In three years Quebec makes it's money back. It looks like the transmission rights have been given up in a long term lease. The power plants are still on a tolling agreement, so there is no control over them either.

It doesn't seem like much control was kept.

Are we going to get the fine print to review before you sign this Graham, or is this another done deal like the last one?

Lets take a look at the 7.35 cents per kw hour part of the deal. My residential bill averages around 9.5 cents per kw hr. So seems fair that the remaining portions of NB Power can make a decent profit and pay for their transmission and distribution costs.

But how about those industrials. I tried to find the industrial rates on the NB Power site, but could not. I was quite sure they were there before, but I cannot seem to find them now. Plus the Sustainability report is missing form the website. It has numbers that give an overall average rate paid by industrial customers.
http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/annual/sustainability.html

But in any case, I have a paper copy somewhere I save. I beleive the rate was around 6 cents per kw hour. Right there, that should ring some bells. NB Power is now forced to buy power at a rate more expensive than it is to sell it. On top of that, it has to give a 23% rate reduction, that will bring the cost for industrials down to 5.2 cents kw hr???

That is quite a subsidy that us poor residentials will be forced to pay.

And on top of that, some days they could make money doing nothing.

Check out the rate that is paid on the open market in New England/Maine. They could just tell NB Power to buy it there, and sell that to it's customers. Meanwhile they will just kep the water in the headponds in Quebec for a "rainy" day.

http://www.iso-ne.com/markets/hrly_data/hourlyLMP.do

As I write this, the price is 4.2 cents per kw hour. That would be about a 43% markup. And they didn't supply anything. Graham, why can't NB Power do that by themselves?

Ahhh, i just puked on my keyboard. This stuff makes me sick.
.
.
.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Lolli pop lolli pop ooohhh lolli pop

To quote an accommplice who has given me a topic or two for my blog, have we been offered the lolli pop?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8sZcmQr6KY

I like lolli-pops too, but I’m gonna hold out for a tastier treat too I think.

And to James on the Lower rates site, where are you? I see you have not posted since
“1.14.2010 at 10:41 am James at Government of New Brunswick :”

This was two days after that fateful meeting where somone’s world was turned upside down. Did it take that long for someone to get through to Charest’s office and utter those famous words ” Houston, we have a problem”.

James, have you been meeting with your Hill & Knowlton advisors scripting new information to feed us? We all might get a little hungry if a single lolli-pop is all you have.

But, without some concrete information to reasearch, it's hard to say how much the new MOU will really change anything. But a high five and congratulations to all those who particpated in any form for the past 2 1/2 months. From letter writing, to blogging, to protesting, to attending information meetings, to talking one on one with your mla, to being one of those 8 people who sent Keir an email, and to online partipaction in everyone's favorite social media.

The graham cracker has been broken !! Maybe the pieces are not small enough yet, but...

I imagine tomorrow will be a busy day. The comparisons will start. The spinning wheel will need to be wound up and sprung free. The teleprompter scripts will be typed up. Crib notes will be handed out to all 32 mla's of the kind required for "yah" instead of a "nay". Opposition parties will be asking for a resignation. Online news story commenters will be calling someone a liar. Again. And Again. And think about it. How many times has Graham said "this is the best deal for New Brunswickers" and now the quote is "We will present an improved deal ... that, I think, is better for Quebec and that will also be better accepted in New Brunswick," Charest said in Quebec City.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jSY7d5FPdtix52TSYqG3mM2VbCHA

I think there is a structural financial issue looming behind the scenes that is quite large. I think Quebec has stepped up their desire for any form of revenue, and I will state a comment a have said previously, that Graham was in the driver's seat with this , and should have held Charest over a barrell. A simple power purchase agreement, at a very favourable rate, that would have replaced the power required while Lepreau was being overhauled, plus as much oil as would have been required in the Coleson Cove and/or Dalhousie station would have been a good start. Throw in some extra for the large wholesalers like Saint John and Edmunston, and the large industrials like, well....... you know who. HQ still has a TW surplus, and while it sits in the headponds, it generates no revenue. Selling it to NB at any price is money in their ( Charest's) pocket.

But instead, Graham has chosen to still sell off the free fuel generation. Water is free, at least when it snows and rains, and the last time I checked, I believe the uranium comes from Canada. Maybe not free, but damn cheap compared to other sources. So here we have two home grown sources of fuel, that will provide at least 50% of the provinces electrical needs, in an already constructed infrastructure, not subject to third world instability, not subject to hostile takeover of foreign governments, and providing local jobs. Lepreau replacement costs are $16 million per month (from NB Power annual report). Assuming that will become profit next year when the refurbishment is fininshed, potential profit over the next 25 years will be :

$16,000,000 per month x 12 months per years x 25 years = $4.8 Billion.

Maybe some one should tell the NERA group so they can project that over infinity and see how much money we are losing.

Hydro alone has been averaging about 3 TW per year.

http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/publications/sustainability/supplementarydocuments/StatisticalOverview_English_Nov%2019.pdf

3 TW hours is 3,000 Gigawatt hours, is 3,000,000 MW hours, is 3,000,000,000 KW hours.
To use 10 cents a kw hr for simplicity sake, that is $300,000,000 per year in revenue.

From the same source, Lepreau has been averaging over 4 TW per year when it runs. If the rest of the 14 TW heritage pool comes from Quebec, I feel bad for any independent power producers in NB. I think it will kinda shut them out in the cold.

Hydro Quebec's strategic plan published in September/October indicated they had 8.5 TW of surplus power because of all the industry they lost due to the economic slowdown. Their projections showed it taking almost 7 years before it started to shrink.

I don't even think HQ needs to sell us much power. I just think they need to have the higher priced revenue on their books to make it look good for those high cost dams they are building.

But 8.5 TW (HQ surplus) plus 4.1 TW (Lepreau) plus 3 TW (hydro) = 15.6 Tw . Lots to go around. Maybe that's why Charest is saying it's a better deal for Quebec. It uses up his surplus, and it didn't cost him so much. Way to go Graham.
.
.
.
.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Huh ????? Another MOU

Well, I imagine everyone has heard the news by now. Graham shipped off to Quebec for the weekend and begged for mercy from old mighty Quebec to give him a deal suitable to his dissident fellow mla's.

Kelly Lamrock gives his version here in a CBC interview.

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/spinreduxit_20100118_26018.mp3

The Canadian Press has reported this:

"The New Brunswick government has reworked the proposed deal to sell NB Power to Hydro-Quebec following a public backlash and criticism within the Liberal caucus.

The government's house leader, Greg Byrne, says caucus members voiced their concerns at a meeting last Tuesday, prompting a number of changes to the proposed deal.

Byrne says the amended deal got the support of all members during a subsequent caucus meeting on Thursday.

He says the full details of the amended agreement will be released on Wednesday.

On the weekend, a source told The Canadian Press that changes in the deal would reduce the amount of power rate reduction promised for industry in New Brunswick."


The CBC version is here. Five mla's in total that want a slim chance at re-election:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/01/18/nb-liberal-caucus-nbpower-1241.html

The Globe and Mail version here. Even some talk of the proposed regional transmission system in Eastern Canada to foster collaboration across political boundaries.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-revised-deal-nb-power-to-retain-some-assets/article1435619/

Fort Reliance, Irvings parent company, says the new system would lower energy costs, improve carbon emissions performance and facilitate economic development.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/irving-firm-calls-for-regional-energy-transmission-system/article1435548/

But no details were given. Maybe Shawn sold them the rights to the "little boxes" I blogged about in December titled "I'm losing it folks". Why would Irving need to hound the province ( well NB Power) for lower rates if they can do all this themselves? Why would their pulp and paper division need handouts to the tune of several millions if they can do all this themselves?

Another article here tells of some details about selling Lepreau and the hydro system for 3.2 Billion.

New Brunswick and Quebec have made major changes to the proposed deal to sell NB Power to Hydro-Quebec.

The Telegraph Journal posted this early this morning and seems to be the first out of the gate. I searched early and this was the only new NB Power article.

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/923808

It amazes me that some of the details of the document were basically leaked out here and there, with the official announcement to only come on Wednesday. I guess it will take a awhile for Hill and Knowlton to swallow the fact that they didn't succeed with the spin the first time, and need to re-group and step up their game a notch with the new MOU.

I wonder if a new NERA report will follow soon as well. I would like to go back and see how many thousand times Shawn Graham said that this deal is the best deal for New Brunswickers as soon as we see the details. (20 seconds in : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtOC26tXcSk) All it took was a couple of mla's to fess up and admit they can only vote "NO" , and all of a sudden the deal is not worth the paper it's written on.

I hope everyone is ready for round two, because the sell job is probalby going to come harder and faster this time. They basically wasted two and half months and had to go back to the drawing board and start over again. Charest's provincial debt must have ballooned more than anticipated and he's desparate for any form of revenue that HQ can get. And they still want it signed and delivered by March 31.

I also imagine you will see a press release this week from the special advisory board that Graham and company threw together the review the MOU. Their opinion won't matter much now. Or at least they will have to take another six weeks or so to review the new MOU. Graham will probably have it passed in the legislation by then. That would kinda seem like a kick in the privates if I was on that team. I imagine they will all send in a bill for their time. Asking them nicely to give a reputable opinion, and then throw out the whole deal. Maybe that's why the Hill and Knowlten rep only spent five minutes with Ganong last week. Not much point in moving forward on that report. And of top of that, Graham is rolling back their rate reduction!! Ha Ha.
.
And maybe this is not the best analogy to use (I like the video), but as former President Bush said, "you fool me once and I can't get fooled again" .
about 40 seconds into this short video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCLY8zrHZ64&NR=1
.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

An Analysis of the Proposed Energie NB Power Sale

This is a great analysis posted at Save NB Power site. I'm a fan of knowing your history before you move forward on a subject. They give a history lesson before moving on with explaining the impacts of the proposed sale. The cover letter as sent to the premier, and list of authors can be found on the Save NB Power website.

http://www.savenbpower.org/CitizensPanel/Analysis.pdf

I have copied the Conclusions here:

1. The major benefit of the proposed sale is the immediate reduction to Industrial rate payers in New Brunswick who realize savings of about 32%.

2. Residential, General and Commercial customers will not see any reduction in rates. They must calculate what the rates would have been had the sale not been completed and consider the savings over time while assuming that many future unknowns do not eliminate some of the savings.

3. HQ realizes substantial benefits both financially and strategically.

4. The value of the ENBP assets to HQ is significantly greater than the outstanding ENBP debt. The rate relief to New Brunswickers does not cost HQ anything. Its gross margin on its NB business will be greater than for its Quebec business.

5. If the deal is concluded it should be at a higher cash value than the ENBP debt.

6. The major cost to NB will be loss of control of this essential service plus the loss of opportunity to take advantage of other sources of energy in the future such as the Lower Churchill developments. The value of retaining control is difficult to quantify. It is a matter of judgement for each citizen/shareholder of ENBP.

7. If the deal is not concluded New Brunswick rate payers will forego rate savings. The NPV of these savings, subject to risks as noted, are calculated to be as follows:
For Industtrial customers calculated to perpetuity (NERA) $2.1 billion
For Residential Customer with a monthly power bill of $400/m $7367 or $30.69/mo
(Calculated at 6% interest for 20 years) $200/m $3683 or $15.35/mo
$100/m $1842 or $7.67/mo

In the event that NB ratepayers believe that only 5 years of savings should be considered because of the many future uncertainties of the NPV, the projected savings would become:
Average Monthly Bill NPV of Savings for 5 years Equiv.$/mo
$400.00/month $1818 $30.30/mo
$200.00/month $909 $15.15/mo
$100.00/month $455 $7.58/mo
Each New Brunswick consumer should be able to decide whether these savings are
worth the loss of ownership of ENBP, its services and its assets.

8. PNB has stated that four objectives were the reason for pursuing this MOU with HQ.
The following is an assessment of whether the stated objectives would be met by
this deal: · “NB must continue to have control of its energy independence and its
energy policies.”
Comment: NB has those controls now because it owns 100% of EBNP.
How can it claim to maintain control when it owns 0%. It cannot!

“NB families and business must have rate relief.”
Comment: NB rate payers currently have the lowest rates in the Maritime
Provinces and substantially lower than the New England states. Lower
rates are always nice but why the imperative?

“The debt must be slashed significantly or eliminated altogether.”
Comment: Lowering the ENBP debt while selling productive assets worth
much more than the debt does not improve NB’s financial position, it
worsens it. The Provinces debt is not lowered at all.

“Our dependence on fossil fuels must be lowered.”
Comment: There will be little or no difference in the use of fossil fuels in
NB whether ENBP or HQ operate the system. HQ does not have the
excess generating capacity, the interconnection capacity or the market
incentive to replace all of NB’s fossil fuel generation with hydro energy.
It will probably be years before it will be in HQ’s interest to expand its NB
facilities.

9. A more desirable option would be to negotiate another long term firm power purchase
agreement (PPA)with HQ . HQ may need some PPA’s to obtain financing for new
generation and additional interconnection capacity. The savings realized could be
distributed to rate payers as necessary for the best economic outcomes. ENBP would
remain as a productive asset of the people of New Brunswick.
Another long term plan would be to develop a strategic partnership with a major electric
energy producer and distributor with a proven track record in international developments
such as Eletricite de France (EDF). In the 1970s EDF faced essentially the same issues as
ENBP . Like ENBP EDF had few indigenous natural resources, but like ENBP was
strategically located and could and did develop strong electrical interconnections with
electric utilities in all neighbouring countries .
EDF is now the “ENERGY HUB” of Europe. Nuclear energy accounts for 86% of France’s
electricity supply. Electricity is France’s fourth largest export.

EDF has made major investments in generating and distribution utilities in the U.K and
recently acquired a 49% interest in Constellation Energy (formerly Baltimore Gas and
Electric) in the U.S.A.
With NB’s strategic location for generating plants and interconnections to the U.S. market,
a company like EDF would be a great partner in implementing Premier Graham’s vision for
NB as the “ENERGY HUB” of North Eastern America.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Rally in Fredericton at the Legislature Building

Just back from Freddy Beach. Didn't feel like no beach though. -12 with the wing blowing. It was cold. But that didn't stop the faithful from attending. The crowd was strong given the weather. There was even a 85 year old couple sitting in the front in chairs that were kept sheltered by the huddled crowd.

A lone sign was stuck in the snowbank contrasting the intended purpose of the building versus the action of the current government. The sign says " NB 1st : One does not sell the right to power. This is a democracy. Support NB Power families. Where an orange ribbon"



Several speakers including union leader for IBEW 37 Ross Galbraith , Conservative Leader David Aylward, NDP Leader Roger Duguay spoke, representatives from the other parties, as well as others. My opologies to everyone else who spoke who I did not name, I have a short memory, and it was too cold to take notes.

This guy is making sure everyone knows his opinion.

The RCMP had a forensic investigation vehicle there with a little cam corder in the window pointed at the crowd. If they were looking for a crime, most felt it should be pointed at the ruling government inside the building.

These two make such a cute couple.



A freindly conservative mla kindly opening the window so the loud ruckus could be heard inside. He's giving a thumbs up, the volume must have been good.





Jack Keir braved the cold to be confronted by an even colder crowd. Unfortunately my camera was set on hi-def and the video I have is too massive to upload. I'll see wht I can do to shrink it and upload later. That's all for now folks. Sorry, no new facts or thoughtful stories today. Well, I did get a handout from the NB Media Co-op. It talks about the well known fact that Hill and Knowlton are used to help the government market the sale of NB Power. Check it out. Worth a look anyway. http://www.nbmediacoop.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=708:media-expert-exposes-marketing-of-nb-power-sale&catid=96:politics&Itemid=197

Monday, January 11, 2010

Conspiracy theory? Another one?

Who beleives in conspiracy theories? I feel the urge to type, and am short on relevant topics, or at least topics that need more research than I want to do at the moment. So here's a non relevant (or is it) rant involving some of our favorite chracters of the day.

Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a global asset manager focused on property, renewable power and infrastructure assets with over $90 billion of assets under management. http://www.brookfield.com/

They currently own Frasers in Edmunston. http://foresttalk.com/index.php/2009/08/10/brookfield-asset-management-reports-increase-in-profits

Guess who is on the board of directors? I'm not telling. You gotta look. But they are very familiar NB faces. One of them even commented that he wished he had the political aptitude to sell NB Power.

http://www.brookfield.com/content/corporate_governance/board_of_directors-1057.html?Page=1

Now the following link will bring you deep into the heart of conspiracy theories. Yes, business leaders around the world are free to gather and discuss common issues, further trade among themselves, and even have a glass or two of the finest wines or a pricy shot of a good cognac. But others feel they are up to no good.

And at the risk of losing my own credibility : have a look
http://www.bilderberggroup.net/

and here : http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bilderberg-group/

Now that you know, you can just type that special word into any internet browser and get a thousand links. All fun stuff.

But this page has that same familiar face. Recent attendee to a conference in fact. http://www.mtl911truth.org/?p=1740&cpage=1

And check this out for fun. Not ready to commit this one to a permanent side link yet. If you listen carefully near the end of the video, I think the former premeir makes reference to the fact that there is no "oil" in NB. But there appears to be something else in the ground around Sussex. Conspiracy theory??

http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/

And a final note. I love the title of the website. First time I seen it was today. It must taken a looong time to photoshop that photo.

http://www.thetelecrapurinal.com/news/2009/11/is-premier-shawn-graham-is-selling-out-new-brunswick-i-dunno-im-just-asking/

Get your "VOILA" t-shirt here and support the cause.
http://www.shirtmagic.com/shop/The%20Telecrap%20Urinal


See everyone at the Rally in Fredericton tomorrow.
.
.
.

Friday, January 8, 2010

Natural Gas in NB ? Who knew!! I know who did.

There seems to be some buzz about Natural Gas these days.

Seems Graham thinks we are a province with no energy related resources.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NB/ID=1379331595 1 minute 13 seconds into video.

Until recently, that was probably true. But several things have happened in the past decade to change that, and Graham would know, his father seems to be well involved in the whole process.
Seems he recently became chairman of the board for a junior resource company that has a lot to gain in the Maritimes from natural gas and particularily shale gas.

http://www.cnsx.ca/Storage/1213/109023_PetroWorth_appoints_Alan_Graham_as_Chairman.pdf
http://www.petroworth.com/welcome.htm

Shale gas looks to be a game changer in the future of generation of electricity.

A hot of the press article from Power Magazine gives a really optimistic outlook of the future of shale gas, and its use in the generation of electricity. It should help to keep the wholesale price of electricity from spiking up in the future. More bad news for Hydro Quebec who don't need the competition. This article is 6 pages long. You need to click on each successive page. It is quite comprehensive.

http://www.powermag.com/gas/The-U-S-Gas-Rebound_2357.html

More evidence of a future "glut" and even some bad news for Irving.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/05/20/nb-lng-tankers-canaport-559.html

The amount of gas has been known for awhile. And too think, they said "it's too early to get excited"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/12/13/nb_mhsusgas001213.html
http://ent-fundy.ca/documents/final_report_oct2004.pdf

And shale gas production could start soon.

http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/914969

This is how its done. Link to video :
http://www.csug.ca/index.php?option=sawvidgallery&task=showVid&id=9

So does any of this tie into the sale of NB Power? Possibly. Possibly not. Will NB Power and the citizens of NB ever get to benefit from it? Except for the 10% royalties, which we'll probably give back the industry players, like we do stumpage for the big players in forest sector, NB'ers will probably not see so much. We'll be quite happy to ship it all stateside, have it turned into electricity down there, and purchased back on the open market as required when oil prices are too high (if we even have to wory about oil prices) . Heaven forbid it is used at Coleson Cove, or even one of the four "gas" turbines in Millbank, just north of Miramichi.

So why, if the volume of gas soon to be available in NB dwarfs that of Sable Island, would Graham be pushing the province away from being able to access and use it to the benefit of the province? I don't know, maybe his father does?
.
.
.