Susan O’Donnell. Photo: NB Media Co-op
Energy activist and Adjunct Research Professor Susan O’Donnell says NB Power’s proposal to burn more fossil fuels shows it’s stuck in the dinosaur age.
“It’s like NB Power management are lumbering along in an alternative universe where’s there’s no climate crisis,” she writes in an e-mail to Warktimes.
O’Donnell was commenting on a letter signed by 130 New Brunswick scientists and professors asking Premier Holt to suspend NB Power’s proposed gas/diesel generating plant on the Chignecto Isthmus.
O’Donnell helped organize and circulate the letter calling on Holt to ask NB Power to issue tenders for an electricity battery storage project instead and redirect investments to renewable sources and energy efficiency.
Among other things, the letter points out that the gas/diesel plant would be built and operated by the Missouri-based company PROENERGY at a time when Canada should be reducing its dependence on the United States.
It also warns that the project would make New Brunswick dependent on fluctuating prices for shale gas piped in from the U.S.
The letter says that the gas plant would threaten human health as well as the health of 165 rare or protected animal species while emitting an additional 900,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
In her e-mail, O’Donnell disputes NB Power’s claim that it will run short of power by 2028 because of population growth.
“Planned data centres are driving growth projections,” she writes.
“We need to be talking as a province about what kinds of industrial and community development we want that respect the limits of a finite planet and ensure a sustainable future.”
To read the letter to Premier Holt and the names of those who signed it, click here.
Can we get back to being the New Wark Times, instead of the Gas Plant All The Times?
I have just sent the following letter to Premier Holt with this original letter attached. I suggest that all NB scientists and academics who did not have the opportunity to sign this excellent letter, and who wish to add their names, immediately do exactly as I have done. You have my permission to copy my letter exactly, if you wish.
An Additional Signature:
Dear Premier Susan Holt,
I did not see the attached letter before it was mailed to you. I have just read it, and would like to add my name to the signatories. I agree 100% with its contents and would have signed, had I had the opportunity.
Thank you.
Dr. Janet E. Hammock
Professor Emeritus of Music
Mount Allison University
Sackville, NB.
If it wasn’t for Bruce Warks’ excellent coverage of this all important issue/proposed project, everyone in Tantramar would be operating in the dark.
We are privileged to have a journalist of his calibre « volunteering! » his time to keep us so well informed.
It makes me SICK to learn whose names are NOT here…ABSENT. INSANE, GUTLESS.
Perhaps, like me, they had no idea of the existence of this letter until they saw it reproduced here on the Wark Times, Leslie! That is why I took the step I did, and suggested they do the same!
Not only is NBPower in the dark ages, the province of New Brunswick so far has shown no regard for the citizens who live on the Isthmus, for the fragile environment and for the wildlife nor for the remarkable resistance to this metagas plant which frankly knows more about science and renewable energy than premier Holt and Dominic Leblanc ever will.
The concerns about the health effects of this gas plant need to be considered, but why have problems much closer to home been ignored? There’s a HUGE smokestack that dominates the Sackville skyline, that pumps out diesel smoke through all the cold months of the years, heating MtA. It has a HUGE diesel tank that, if it leaked, would pour into the stream feeding the waterfowl park. AFAIK, there are no plans to replace fossil fuels with something else.
The same goes for vehicles in Sackville. The truck driving by you on the street is a FAR more significant source of pollutants going into your body than a generator many kilometres away. But nobody is demanding solutions for reducing traffic and pollution in town. Is the university looking at ways to encourage students to study here without bringing cars?
Dear Jon,
There was a time and a Biology Department that would have been very vocal on this project. However, Mount A is muzzled on all things science as are many other institutions of higher “learning to look the other way” as the Petro Corp and Forest Corp of this province denude us of our natural resources and precious environment. Put up, shut up and look the other way. Mount A’s
Biology Department of the 70s and 80s would have been very much active and vocal in exposing this corporate welfare handout and resultant environmental and ecological catastrophe that will ensue, with many strings attached. These were scientists like Patterson, Harries, Thompson, Fensom and Hanson. Jon, at least the surrounding citizens of Centre Village know when to stand up for their neighbours and say, “I do care what is happening out side my back yard.” I am also waiting to hear from CWS?????? Oh ya there
is another type of muzzle other than the one on a gun!
To Janet Hammock and others who’d like to sign the letter, pls contact me, my email is available on my UMoncton page. I’m happy to add you to the list! Thanks for your support!
Thank you! I have done so. Where can we see the letter with the updated signatures?
Not since the days of living in Toronto, have I seen the likes of a NIMBY (not in my backyard) campaign like the one currently advocating to stop the proposed RIGS generating station. The fact that over a hundred academics and the like have banded together with local groups opposing the facility, ostensibly lends more credibiity to their contentions. Or does it? How about the credibility of those of us who spent their lives ‘boots on the ground’ in the oil and gas industry. Oh yeah, we are given labels as ‘dinosaurs,’ ‘dougs,’ and are in the ‘dark ages,’ because we dont share their views and actually support the project. I would bet the rest of my working days salary that none of them have ever set foot on a pipeline right of way or gas transmisson facility, donned work boots, hardhats, FRC and the like to go to work, stood by during a pig run, researched, wrote and followed up project controls and protocols including environmental procedures for construction, to name a few. Yet, through some odd circumstance and without any real word experience in oil and gas, these folks proclaim far and wide, how bad a project this is, second-guessing the project proponents as well as NB Power. Not sure what they think they are proving, save for publicly proclaiming their lack of knowledge. Perhaps then, they can explain how other provinces and US states have operating hydrocarbon facilities in ecosystems just as sensitive, yet Centre Village is somehow more fragile. As far as the natural gas transmission and delivery are concerned, who cares if it comes from the Montney shale fields, or via the Northern Corridor routing across TC or Enbridge or Tennessee Valley authority pipelines, fracked or not. Like that movie quote from the ’90’s: “show me the money.” Dispense with all the hype, hoopla and fear mongering and present the facts. Prove that all the negative effects of the project will occur, iinstead of spreading around what we should be afraid of. Without fact, it is merely fiction.
“Standing by during a pig run” while wearing work boots makes you an expert in assessing the environmental harms of the C02 that will be produced by this project, vs greener options like renewable energy and alternate storage systems?
That’s like claiming a factory worker in the arms industry knows more about peace than a diplomat negotiating arms control.
Jon, I believe it was noted that experience in environmental matters, which includes CO2 levels/monitoring and the like were “researched, wrote and followed up project controls and protocols including environmental procedures for construction,” were some of the tasks I have done. Matter of fact, my roles have been right from field operator and inspector to vice president. Does that make me an ‘expert?.’ No, not in the least. It means I have a certain knowledge and experience that understands the parameters to construct and operate a facility such as the RIGS project and not be afraid of it In case you were wondering, a ‘pig run’ is not the 4 legged animal you may have seen on Bugs Bunny, doing laps around the pen. A pig is an electronic device that travels along internal pipeline sections, measuring wall thickness, ovalities and other anomalies. In case you are interested in learning more, perhaps you can have a look at the Z662 standard for Canada, as well as various other American and International standards for construction and operations of a facility like the proposed RIGS plant. There’s lots out there, which, by the way, compliance to them is mandatory. Period. Typically project specifications would stipulate something to the effect that “All work shall be performed and comply with (issuing agency) standard XY-Z3gg.kl (2024), as an example. Happy reading!
So, you have vested interest in this project, as it has been your working life.
Scientists and local groups – conservation and just residents who don’t want their back yard polluted – are vested because, well, they don’t want their back yards polluted (and other reasons).
So which group is it we should listen to/believe?
Your very last sentence is “Without fact, it is merely fiction” – yet you dismiss the facts given to you because of… personal bias? Or what is it that makes you disbelieve what the scientists and reports give as the reason for the project and others like it to be rejected?
The fact is – you make money off of the oil industry. Of course you have an interest to see any project tied to it to continue.
And while it is likely that yes, there is some NIMBY going on, not everyone feels that way. And not every scientist is a sell out to Government or special interest groups.
So… who should it be that we listen to, you (or rather, the ones who make the $$ off this project), or the Scientists?
Yes, Steve. I was aware of what sort of “pig” it was. Nevertheless, knowledge of the petroleum industry doesn’t change the fundamental fact that all fossil fuel consumption puts carbon into the atmosphere that comes from outside the natural cycles of carbon extraction and release by plants, fundamentally changing the environment. That’s the main problem with fossil fuel electrical generation such as the proposed facility.
Elaine,
We all have a vested interest in the proposed project, from both sides of the coin, so to speak. You are correct in your assertion that, due to experience working in and earning a living from oil and gas, my interest is to see the project proceed. It is not my intention to compel you or any other interested party for that matter, to believe in any point I bring up in this forum. The arguments both for and against this project are well-documented and I would think you would side with whatever position holds your favor. Mine happens to lie with the positive, with other scientists and academics who likewise have researched oil and gas and drawn different conclusions, than the ones offered by the folks cited in this article.
Steve,
Which “other scientists and academics who likewise have researched oil and gas and drawn different conclusions, than the ones offered by the folks cited in this article”?
Are you saying that there is peer-reviewed research that shows fossil fuels are not resulting in global warming?
Steve,
Sure, we all have a vested interest in the project for various reasons. Mine are the American connection and how stupidly – in this time of stupidity – NB seems to want to ignore the stances of the US and thinks going with a US company is a great idea.
Your side lining with the “positive” though, that’s highly questionable, if not debatable, and goes right back to my question originally:
Who do we believe, you (and the scientists you claim are for such projects), or the scientists who are against the plant?
As an aside, in answer to your comment below (wrongly directed to me; that was Jon asking), I’m fully aware that oil and gas aren’t going away anytime soon. The issue is, just because it’s not going away soon doesn’t mean we should keep pushing the things that use such when we DO know the side-effects the industry has on both people and planet and we are at a place NOW that things don’t HAVE to be that way. And while it may still be around in the time of our grandkids, there is already doubt that our grandkids will be thankful that we continued blindly to attach ourselves to oil and gas when alternatives were out there. Frankly, the youth (Gen X and Z) are pushing the issue more than our own generation and older. THAT should be telling as well, and should have a factor in the decisions as well.
Nicely said! Elaine! Thank you!
Elaine,
When you have a minute, perhaps you can have a look at the TJNews site, specifically the piece entitled “Climate ambition must confront grid reality.” The author presents a logical and realistic position in regards to the RIGS project, which is supported by events in Europe and Canada, where battery systems were proven to be ineffective, particularly in peak load times. SaskEnergy tried to shut its coal-powered and NG generating stations in favour of renewable systems, yet due to the intermittent nature of both wind and sun, (particularly in the winter) returned to the coal and natural gas gen stations to keep the power grid operating. Matter of fact, at peak times with temperatures well below zero, the contribution to the grid by the renewable systems was in the 0.2-3.0% range. This data is available on the Inet, if interested.
In regards to the fact that NB Power has given a US company the nod for construction and operation of the RIGS facility, I see no problem with it. From working in the US for a multinational company with electric, wind, solar and NG business units, the expertise there is in some ways, far ahead of what we see here in NB. This particular organization where I was employed was involved in a new power line project from the Quebec border to north of Boston, taking advantage of the clean energy offered by CFL Co and Muskrat falls. In addition, they were also constructing wind farms offshore New York state and Connecticut, to increase the level of renewable energy available there, which was enhanced by constructing NG pipelines and LNG facilities in NY, MA and CT, to augment the power grid. If that model works in the US, considering the might and influence wielded by the EPA, it can work here in NB. Although being a European-based company with a strong focus to build renewable energy facilities globally, they understood the stability of NG to provide heat and lights. Does that sound familiar?
Once again, in terms of who or what you should personally believe in this matter, that is completely up to you and most definitely is your choice. There will always be voices both for and against, yet my support is for the project.
Actually, the demand for fossil fuels is growing globally. I have nothing against this RIGS project, but you don’t hear from those who want it. The anti-everything crowd is a noisy group—there are many who support this project. 1100 people do not represent the entire 10 thousand who live here. Plus, this is a provincial project to supply power to all New Brunswicker’s so it’s going in anyway.
Allen – You make it sound like demand for fossil fuels is equivalent to the demand for renewable energy: a consumer choice. It isn’t.
There are valid reasons for wanting to avoid fossil fuels, the main one being that they are causing severe, dangerous, and expensive damage to the climate.
If alternatives exist, there are no valid reasons for wanting fossil fuels. They profit certain companies and regions, but they’re also subsidized in a variety of ways that make it unclear how cheap they really are. The price doesn’t include the costs of the damage they do, and they are often cheap because of tax breaks, government investment in infrastructure, and other reasons.
In fact, I’ve never met anyone who “wants” fossil fuel generating stations. We all want electricity, but do any electricity consumers prefer fossil fuel generation over alternatives? Consumers want a reliable source of electricity they can afford. They don’t generally care how it’s made unless the generation does harm.
NB Power plans for about 1/5 of the power from the proposed plant to be sold to NS, so the project isn’t only about supplying NB.
Elaine,
I am referring to other scientists/academics who are proponents of oil and gas, who realize that fossil fuels are not going to disappear in our lifetime and in all likelihood, not in our grandchildrens’ time either. Have a look on any search engine and you will find relevant studies, to advance this ideal.
The scientific consensus is that fossil fuels are driving catastrophic climate change. That isn’t an issue with two sides we have to consider. It was clearly resolved with scientific research years ago.
It’s true that fossil fuels are not going to disappear instantly. But that is an economic question, not a scientific one, and how to manage that transition period is a political question.
Science has already resolved the question of if we need to abandon fossil fuels, and the answer is that we do.
Steve,
Well, I don’t subscribe to the TJ so I can’t read the story you’re referencing.
I don’t doubt, however, that there is support for the RIGS – and other similar – projects. Even you state as much. Even I’ll admit as such.
I’ll also direct you to the story published on Feb. 12:
“New Brunswick’s Energy & Utilities Board heard expert testimony today on battery energy storage systems (BESS) from Toby Couture, a graduate of Mount Allison University who went on to earn advanced degrees from the Université de Moncton and the London School of Economics.”
Mr. Couture would be considered an ‘expert’ in his field, both renewables and energy production as a whole.
He believes RIGS is not the right thing for the region.
“Once again, in terms of who or what you should personally believe in this matter, that is completely up to you and most definitely is your choice. There will always be voices both for and against, yet my support is for the project.”
Yes, and I agreed with you before when you said this. But the question – yet again – remains WHO does a person believe, you and your scientists, or other people and their scientists?
Perhaps I’m not making clear WHY this question is important. It’s important because there needs to be a choice made – support the project or not. NB – both residents and Government – need to pick a side, but how can a side be picked when we don’t know who to believe?
But perhaps the question should be rephrased – why should we believe YOU and YOUR scientists, over those who propose the opposite arguments? Invested interests considered then put aside, why should the project continue? What questions have been answered enough to set aside reasonable doubt that the project will benefit NB and the Tantramar region?
Elaine,
A subscription to the TJNews is not required. Simply go on their website and look for the article or, the local “Community Chatter” page on social media.
In terms of who or what to believe, that is for you to draw your own conclusions. Perhaps the next time there is a public information session with ProEnergy and NB Power representatives there, you can chat with them about the pros and cons of the project. I’m sure they would be happy to address any of your concerns.
From working in the US for a company focused on traditional and renewables for power generation as well as NG and LNG, the market, climate, technology and population base here and in the US are different than that where the individual you named has experience. The RIGS plant may be outdated technology in his part of the world, yet it is still current in the northeastern US as well as Canada. In case it is of any interest, in the US the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the ability to approve/deny projects similar in scope to the Centre Village plant. They carry a lot of weight, so to speak. The fact that similar projects to this one have been approved by them and are in operation south of the border, is proof enough of their validity. I always enjoy the “back and forth” your viewpoints provide Elaine, yet will not be commenting further. Best of luck in your research!
Many people don’t care how they get their energy—they just care that the lights come on when they flick the switch. You forget this plant is also replacing the carbon-heavy coal and oil plants currently running here in New Brunswick, which will be decommissioned by 2030. So by comparison, natural gas doesn’t look bad at all. In fact, the biggest reduction in carbon emissions in recent Canadian history happened in Alberta when they replaced their coal-fired plants with natural gas. Alberta phased out coal completely by mid-2024 (years ahead of the 2030 target), with natural gas taking over most of the load alongside growing renewables. Electricity sector emissions dropped dramatically—by about 53% since 2005, and in many cases, switching specific plants cut CO₂ emissions intensity by around 60% (e.g., one major conversion project alone reduced emissions by 3.4 million tonnes per year). Battery storage sites have huge upstream impacts and emissions too (from mining lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manufacturing), so nothing is perfect. Natural gas is a practical bridge to cleaner energy while keeping the grid reliable and affordable.
Ooh yes, Mr. Crane! Alberta LOVES fossil gas SSSOOOOO MUCH that’s why they were overjoyed to see one third of Jasper burn 🔥 to the ground in 2024 and the province besieged with forest fire and drought from stem to stern, one area of the province to the next! Give your head a shake, man, who do you think you are fooling?
The Jasper fire was caused by natural causes (lightning), amid extreme wind conditions. It has nothing to do with any power project. If you had any level of comprehension, you’d know the gas power plants in Alberta that replaced their coal generation actually reduced carbon emissions by 53%. You have to make ad hominem attacks because you have no argument… pathetic!