Tantramar MLA Megan Mitton
Tantramar MLA Megan Mitton says the proposed 500 MW gas/diesel generating plant on the Chignecto Isthmus is being pushed through in haste, without proper consultation.
“It’s pretty hard to stomach this being called transparent when it was really sprung on us in the middle of summer and trying to be rushed through in summer when we can’t have recording, we can’t have journalists record what’s happening in this room,” she said during a public question and answer session attended by about 200 people Wednesday at the Tantramar Civic Centre in Sackville.
The American company, PROENERGY, which hosted the Q&A, would not allow audio recording devices or cameras to be used during the meeting. Warktimes snapped the above photo of Mitton after it ended and during an angry exchange with a security guard was escorted out of the building.
Mitton was the final speaker of the 19 who asked questions of officials from PROENERGY, NB Power, Stantec consulting and the provincial department of environment and local government. The questions and answers led to exchanges that were at times heated and angry while at others, highly technical.
“We’re not going to let you go in and build this,” someone shouted from the audience as Mitton objected to the use of fracked gas in a massive power plant located in a highly sensitive eco-system.
“It’s not happening. You are not building this. We will be out there every day,” the audience member added.
“My community won’t accept this,” Mitton said, “and I’m proud of everyone in the room for showing up, being educated, researching this and asking great questions.
“This is our community and this is our utility. N.B. power shouldn’t be signing contracts with U.S companies,” she said to cheers and applause.
Mat Gorman of NB Power said the fracked gas comes from Alberta through a pipeline that runs through the States.
“It’s all fracked,” Mitton said. “We shouldn’t be burning more fracked gas.”
‘Why here?’
Topaz Generating Station near Houston, Texas is similar to the one that PROENERGY wants to build near Centre Village. Photo: PROENERGY
Allison Manthorne, a director at Birds Canada, pointed out that the Chignecto Isthmus is one of 23 conservation priority sites in Canada where numerous environmental organizations are working to preserve wildlife habitat and a wide variety of flora and fauna.
“Given the international importance of this area for wildlife and biodiversity, why here?” she asked to loud applause.
Mat Gorman of NB Power replied that the utility looked at nine locations for the gas plant, but finally settled on two: the Scoudouc Industrial Park and the Isthmus.
“We needed natural gas availability and we needed transmission line infrastructure,” he said, referring to the fact that the Maritimes and Northeast gas pipeline and a major transmission line both cross at the site near Centre Village.
He added that environmental consultants from Stantec assessed both sites and judged that the one in Scoudouc was more vulnerable when considering the effects on fish and fish habitats, wetlands and migratory birds.
He said the Scoudouc site also has potential archeological significance.
“Both sites are viable,” Gorman said, “but to meet the needs of our system integration by 2028, we would not have been able to develop the Scoudouc property in time, which led us to Centre Village.”1
Hydro & battery backup
Mat Gorman also rejected suggestions that NB Power could buy more electricity from Quebec instead of building a big gas plant.
He said that when bad weather hits, Quebec is often affected too and as demand for electricity increases, there can be supply shortages, a situation that developed during a record cold snap in February 2023.
“Internal security always comes first,” Gorman said. “You need to have local source generation to meet your peak demands for that one bad day at a maximum capacity and you can’t rely on your injects.”
Landon Tessmer. Photo: PROENERGY
He also argued that, at the moment, Quebec does not have as much excess hydro power as people think.
Landon Tessmer of PROENERGY said storage batteries won’t work as an alternative either, especially when there’s a climate emergency that knocks out half the grid.
“Let’s call it a severe winter storm and you’re out for four days in a row,” he said.
“You need a power plant that can provide power for four days straight. A battery can provide power for four hours, not four days straight.”
Animals & forests
The emotional and technical aspects of the public Q&A came into sharp contrast after eight-year-old Marlee Hicks asked: “How many animals will be killed or moved as you build your plant?”
Dale Conroy of the consulting firm Stantec said the effects on birds, fish, other wildlife and rare plants are being studied as part of the current environmental assessment.
“And from that, we’re going to put in mitigation that will hopefully, if the project gets approved, be put in place to reduce any impacts to those types of animals that are in the area that we found,” he added.
“What does mitigation mean?” Marlee Hicks asked.
“So mitigation is basically a term we use for, I guess, best management practices that are put in place to help reduce the effects of something,” Conroy answered.
“So, for instance, if we wanted to cut down a tree or a forest…
“Why would we cut down a forest?” Hicks asked as the audience broke into laughter and applause.
“We cut down forests every day,” Conroy replied.
“But typically, on a project like this, we would put in mitigation that says you can’t cut down a forest when it’s breeding bird season because you don’t want to harm the breeding birds or the eggs that are in the nest. So you wait until they’re done breeding before you cut down the tree.”
“That’s not how it goes,” an obviously unconvinced Hicks concluded.
Why Center Village and not the originally planned Scoudouc Industrial Park?
Well because the daily ‘up to’ 7000 cubic meters of super heated waste water would have ended up in the Scoudouc River and continued on to the Northumberland Strait. This would have probably dramatically increased the e-coli count at the prized Parlee Beach as well as all the rest of the adjoining beach strip. Not to mention the possible negative effects on the Strait’s lucrative lobster fishery!
Dominic would NEVER allow that to happen, so it sounds like a decision was made to have it located in Center Village and the effluent will end up in our Bay of Fundy instead, via the Tantramar River system.
One will never get to know what goes on behind those closed doors.
The scariest part is that they aren’t revealing the different chemicals and additives they will be using in the cooling water to combat corrosion and scale build up.
I would think much of the expended cooling water will find its way back into the aquifer that the local water wells are now using. There are lots of sites on the internet that explains different treatments.
The PROENERGY proposal summarizes the various risks that are attracted by this project. Then, the proposal outlines a mitigation plan for each of these risks. BUT, given the ecological significance of the Chignecto area, ANY RESIDUAL RISK IS TOO MUCH RISK! Unless the various risks can be reduced to zero, then the plant cannot proceed. And none of the risks can be reduced to zero. So, you know, this crowd must be kicked to the curb as the only way to fully mitigate risk.
Yes, there are mitigation outlines noted throughout Proenergy’s proposal for all the risks mentioned. However, almost each of these plans are heavily qualified, meaning the company will always have a way out of what they propose. Just a few examples: mitigation plan “may be implemented” (!); they will be followed “where practical” or “as feasible”. As regards the migratory birds, “Vegetation clearing will be completed outside the migratory bird nesting period […] unless unavoidable.” These examples, far from being complete, are in sections 19.2 to 19.6 only (i.e. there are many more such qualifiers). I would therefore not put any faith whatsoever in these mitigation outlines.
I had an interesting conversation with Mat Gorman, from NB Power, after the Q&A at the TVMCC. He stated that the main reason that this project may not go through will be based on water availability.
One must remember that the facility will need up to 7,000 cubic meters of cooling water per day to operate when it is running at maximum output. Sackville’s water supply averages around 2,500 cubic meters per day even while supplying Mount Allison. Sackville is supplied by three drilled wells which feed from the aquifer(s) below a great sloping watershed north of the Walker Road.
The flat level land of the proposed Center Village site will have TWO 12″ drilled wells to suck water from the aquifer beneath. During the time that the proposed 10 generators will be at maximum output, which is the mid winter months, the ground is usually frozen and with snow cover, so very little make up water will be deposited in the aquifer. It appears to me that current water wells in the Center Village area will go ‘dry’ by February or March with this massive drain happening below them. I think we are headed for a real mess like what happened in Penobsquis when the aquifer drained into the potash mine and took everyone’s well water with it. We are supposed to learn by our mistakes!!!!
Dumping 7000 m3 of cooling water sounds like an incredible waste of water, and of energy. An efficiently designed facility would use the waste heat, not dump it, and could recycle cooling water.
In Quebec we stopped the TransCanada pipeline, for now. I had an altercation with their security people during an “information session”, and followed it up with a letter to the parent company in Alberta to tell them what happened. It looks bad on the company when their reps are not civil with the people whose land they want to use. Keep up the pressure, but think out new ways. The old ways of protesting don’t work as well anymore.
Note for the MLA: You don’t speak for me.
Matter of fact, the folks I have talked to since the session last Wednesday are of the same opinion, as in, you dont speak for them either. Your support base is not as broad as you present it to be.
Being a long-term worker on oil, gas and pipeline projects, I am in approval of this endeavour, without hesitation.
Were any of those people at the “session”?
How many “folks” have you spoken to? Considering the number of people at Wednesday’s meeting seemed to back Megan, I’d seriously question your stance that her “support base is not as broad as you present it to be”.
While you are obviously biased about the support you have for this project, those of us who attended the meeting – whether for or against – showed legitimate concerns enough to BE there to question.
And it has to be said, when the people in charge lie from the first question, that does NOT bode well for the trustworthiness of them for the rest of the night, and into after.
How close do you live to the prospective place this plant will go, Charles? Will it impact you more than, say, the farmers and landowners right next door? Just curious.
Elaine,
The number of people I spoke to as well as their presence/non presence at the meeting is irrelevant. Same holds true for the location of my residence in the municipality, in relation to the farmers and other land owners.
As I was told, the common element for people not attending the meeting was for fear of it degrading into an adversarial, argumentative sideshow, which it had elements thereof. You and your supporters who are against the project most likely outnumbered those in favor of it at the meeting, but would not form the majority opinion.
You bet I am ‘biased’ in support of the project, in the same way you are ‘biased’ against it. The difference is, however, that my position comes from over 25 years working on oil, mining, natural gas and pipeline projects, globally. That has given an understanding and appreciation of the protocols, techniques and processes involved in building a facility like this, based on solid engineering, scientific and environmental requirements and practices. Right from clearing and grubbing, topsoil stripping and separation, water table protection and many other considerations, strict protocols are in place to prevent any possible adverse effects. Perhaps you could explain the science and proof of the consequences/damage you claim will occur, when this facility is built. My guess? There is none, which, if that is the case, is mere subjective fallacy.
It is indeed unfortunate that the officials at the meeting did not provide you with the answers you wanted. Does that mean they are ‘wrong’? No, not in the least. As my folks used to say, “if you go looking for trouble, you will find it…”
Well, Charles, I wasn’t “Against” the project initially. I attended Wednesday to hear what both sides had to say, those for and against the project. I had concerns, but wasn’t against it. In the end I do agree with NB Power, that NB DOES need a system of power for back up in cases of power outages. The MANNER of that system is the issue.
But then things fell apart right away with the lie about Indigenous support and it continued to fall after that (the environmental impact studies, lack of communication with locals, etc, etc).
So there was no “you and your supporters”. As well not everyone who asked questions did seem to be against the project, rather they had questions they wanted answered. Yes, there were people there upset/frustrated/angry – rightfully so, as we learned as the night went on – but I think your assumption that most there were against it isn’t exactly correct.
If you think though that your place of residence in relation to this plant – after the information we were given – is irrelevant then you are also not exactly as ‘clued in’ as you think about the project and despite your “years” it doesn’t mean squat really when the company itself has shoved its foot down its own throat and proven the so called “protocols” aren’t even being followed. When even the initial Environment assessment claims things that are not true (no fish locally, when there are (as mentioned at the meeting, there are Sea Trout that are found in the waterways), for example) and you add that to other things that came up, it leads to distrust of the entire “process” you claim that is followed. Maybe in your vast 25 years of experience you worked with/for only companies that were good, truthful and honest with locals about these things. PROENERGY is proving it is not and that is an issue.
Perhaps you should put out a word to your good companies to come and take over this project. It’d be nice if the locals worked with a corporation that actually cared about local input and concerns.
Elaine,
As I mentioned this morning, please explain to those of us who would like to know, the scientific facts to back up your claims. Seeing as this did not occur in your reply, I must conclude, once again, that you have none.
I also unfortunately note that you have used a tactic that is common in groups who have little to no substance in their arguments and have taken a position like yours, that being by belittling my person and/or the project proponents.
Call it what you will, subjective fallacy, hype, hyperbole, conjecture, fear-mongering. Unless and until the consequences you listed as being certain to occur can be proven as fact, they are merely fiction.
I fully and without hesitation, support the construction of this facility.
Charles,
What is it I claimed again? Oh right – that they did not tell the truth about the Indigenous support (which they did not do as has been reported by Bruce and now by CBC).
That’s it. That is ALL I “claimed”. Which requires no “scientific facts” to back up. Just reading. And seeing as I did back that up, I’m not sure what your issue is. Now, OTHERS have made other claims, but I won’t speak to those as I have my own opinions on that, too.
Oh, in my second reply to you, I guess bringing up the environmental impact and having questions about its implementation could be a thing needing “scientific back up”, but since they claim to have done an initial impact assessment, but not a full scale one, to repeat what has been said in their claims would be jumping the gun, would it not?
As for “belittling your person and/or the project proponents” – what part did I belittle you at? I asked questions, you said they were irrelevant (despite that yes, actually they are relevant), I stated you have a bias, which you do and admit to, and suggested that since you’ve got vast years of experience in this area, perhaps you can use your connections to bring in a good company and not a company that is willing to lie and exclude the local people that this would influence.
So not sure where there’s any belittling of you there.
The company, on the other hand… absolutely, because they HAVE not told the truth. They HAVE been downright disrespectful to the people of Tantramar, not just individuals.
I also have to note that the belittling of a person has come more from your end than mine. You certainly keep lumping me in with people and claiming a stance that I supposedly have, which isn’t exactly true.
“Unless and until the consequences you listed as being certain to occur can be proven as fact, they are merely fiction. ”
Again, not sure what you’re talking about here. Perhaps you are confusing me for someone else.
You support the construction of this facility – well, good for you.
I support construction of a facility that does the JOB of what this one is supposed to do, but the how of getting to that point needs to be done with more respect to the people who live here and not just do whatever because who cares what the backwater people want.
I wish you and your compatriots the best of luck in your attempts to stop this facility, Elaine.
My gut feeling is that it will go ahead, despite the hype and negativity you and the other naysayers present to the public. Once again, the local MLA and the protest group she has to fight this project do not speak for me, nor numerous other folks in the municipality.
Unless those who oppose the project, be it you or other persons, can bring proof to back up the claims of how bad this project is in general and the horrible environmental effects that will allegedly occur, there is no validity to the claims.
I have no ‘compatriots’. I may disagree with this plant being put in place, but it is not for the reasons many others have.
I agree that it’s likely this will go ahead despite concerns about this plant.
The MLA DOES, however, speak for folks in the municipality. You may not have voted for her, but she won her election, thus her JOB is to speak for the municipality. That is how our Government works and how elections work. You are free, of course, to help push someone else to take the position next election who would fit more with your… values.
As for proof of claims others have made, well those were presented at the meeting; too bad you did not attend, eh?
Oh, and Charles? Perhaps read the new article Bruce just put up. It’s a wonderful little “proof to back up the claims of how bad this project is in general and the horrible environmental effects that will allegedly occur”, which would, in turn, I guess validate the concerns of those who have voiced those concerns.
(not me, my concerns are something else – just to remind you since you forget it so often)
I did read the article, Elaine.
There are some good points for sure, but overall more assumptions there than fact.
Fact is, in the front end engineering/project planning stage, options in terms of best practice and operational/service requirements would have been weighed, with the best alternative being put forward. This is what is currently proposed, with industry procedures, processes and policies necessary to bring the project to completion. I trust those who have the knowedge and experience in building/operating a facility such as this, versus others without experience, telling those experts in effect, how to do their job.
Once again, I fully and without hesitation support the construction of this facility.