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

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.
.
.
.
.

"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?"

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.

.
.
.

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

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.
.
.
.

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.

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.
.
.
.

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.

.
.
.

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)
.
.
.

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
.
.
.

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

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.
.
.
.

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!"

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.

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.

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.
.
.
.

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.
.
.
.
.

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


.
.
.

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"
.
.
.
.