Tantramar management services consultant Steve Cullen
Tantramar Town Council heard one presentation that tilted heavily in favour of the proposed 500 MW Chignecto Isthmus gas plant on Tuesday and two others strongly against it.
Steve Cullen, a local management services consultant who has worked for various energy companies including Avangrid Networks, suggested Tantramar residents should not worry about the proposed 500 MW gas plant near Centre Village that NB Power has hired the U.S. company PROENERGY to build, own and operate.
Drawing on more than 30 years of experience in helping build oil and gas facilities, Cullen told town council that strong, international quality control standards, strict environmental regulations as well as the environmental standards and policies of the project proponents ensure that the construction and operation of gas plants do no harm.
“Perhaps the greatest concern expressed in media of late is the regulatory and compliance as it relates to wildlife, environment, and things of that nature,” he said.
He added that based on the various projects he worked on, environmental effects are taken very seriously.
“I would assume that following the same standard that would be in place here at this facility, water, wastewater, chemicals, biocide, whatever you want to call it, those are not allowed to be discharged into the environment, period,” Cullen said.
“They have to be either stored on site for containment, taken away later for treatment or treated by a wastewater facility on site.”
Cullen emphasized that he has no affiliation with the proponents of the Tantramar gas plant and no inside knowledge of their plans, but suggested they will have to abide by the strict environmental standards that are in place everywhere else.
Comprehensive EIA
Councillor Michael Tower referred to a slide Cullen presented showing a natural gas compressor station north of Peace River, Alberta.
“Did they do a comprehensive environmental study?” Tower asked.
“Yes,” Cullen answered.
“Members of the public here, council itself, have pushed for this project early on to have a comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) from the start,” Mayor Black said.
“We have been denied that opportunity every step of the way,” he added, pointing to the much less rigorous “deterministic” assessment that the province is currently conducting.
Cullen replied that comprehensive assessments are mandatory in western Canada and in the U.S. where the Environmental Protection Agency has very strong standards.
“So of course, those things had to be done before we even broke ground,” he said. “I would think that this would be the same thing here…I would hope that they would do that.”
Respect for neighbours
Centre Village resident Terry Jones
In her five minute presentation, Centre Village resident Terry Jones said the proposed gas plant raises serious questions about public safety, yet the town has no bylaws to protect residents in the former LSDs.
“It is the role of this Council to start the process of drafting bylaws that protect the health and well-being of people, wildlife, livestock, the environment, and limit excessive water draw, provide buffer zones around industrial projects and utility sites for all future development,” she said.
She pointed out that the proposed gas plant would be right next to her home.
“There’s no fence between me and them,” she said. “There’s definitely no sound barrier. I keep being told that it’s going to be very, very quiet, but I’m thinking it’s not going to be,” Jones said.
“I was going to bring a vacuum today and just plug it in over in the corner so we could listen to it for the whole meeting and just see how many people enjoyed a quiet vacuum in their background 24-7.”
She added that construction is underway again at the gas plant site with big trucks tearing up Rte. 940.
“So, it’s destroying the shoulder of the road. The potholes are unbelievable. This is the worst I’ve seen since 1992 when I moved to Brooklyn Road first and then to Centre Village.”
She added she’s not against responsible development that takes neighbours and the environment into consideration.
“I’m just saying responsible use of the land and respect for your neighbours,” Jones said.
“They don’t have either at PROENERGY, nor at NB Power.”
BESS in Tantramar?
Peter Higham of Seniors for Climate — Tantramar
Peter Higham of Seniors for Climate — Tantramar told council that his group is part of the Protect the Chignecto Isthmus Coalition that is resolved to keep fighting the proposed gas plant until the government finally stops it.
“To repeat, we are fixed in purpose until the gas plant is completely cancelled,” he said.
“It’s not that we don’t want that plant here in Tantramar. We don’t want it anywhere in New Brunswick.”
Higham referred to a document from the Conservation Council of New Brunswick that promotes grid-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS) as an alternative to burning fossil fuels.
First, it enhances the reliability and stability of the electrical grid, ensuring a consistent supply of electricity even during peak demand or unforeseen disruptions,” he said as he read from the CCNB document.
“Second, it facilitates the integration of renewable energy sources like wind and solar by storing excess energy during times of low demand and releasing it during high demand periods. This reduces reliance on fossil fuels and promotes a cleaner, more sustainable energy mix.”
Higham noted that town council had received a letter from the Canadian company NRStor that builds, owns and operates energy storage projects and he urged council to organize a public information session so that the company could demonstrate what it has to offer.
Jeff Taylor, Tantramar’s director of community and corporate services, said he had met with NRStor twice.
“They’re looking at somewhere to site battery energy storage, and they wanted to work with local partners,” he said.
Taylor added he had put the company in touch with the Southeast Regional Service Commission’s planning department as well as the town’s Climate Change Advisory Committee to help identify sites that might be suitable locations for battery storage.
“That type of project is mushrooming everywhere and usually in connection with wind and solar power,” Higham said.
“So that is just another example of where the fossil fuel technology is old-dated and we’re in a new era now and we better get there like everybody else is doing.”
I’m not sure if Steve is currently in the industry, or if he’s retired out of it but:
“Drawing on more than 30 years of experience constructing oil and gas facilities, Cullen told town council that strong, international quality control standards, strict environmental regulations as well as the environmental standards and policies of the project proponents ensure that the construction and operation of gas plants do no harm.”
I would have to point out this is… only partly, maybe, *possibly* valid.
Rather this should read – near the end – “…proponents ensure that the construction and operation of SOME gas plants do no harm.” That at least would have been more truthful.
The biggest issue I see though are two points given in this report about his presentation.
1. “He added that based on the various projects he worked on, environmental effects are taken very seriously.” – yet there is no proof that Pro Energy or NB Power doing this what so ever: taking environmental effects seriously, that is.
2. “I would assume…” – and that is the biggest problem; there is the assumption of Pro Energy and NB Power “doing the right thing” when they have, through this entire process, continued NOT to do the right thing, and that has been proven time and again.
Which leads to my two final thoughts.
“Cullen replied that comprehensive assessments are mandatory in western Canada and in the U.S. where the Environmental Protection Agency has very strong standards.
“So of course, those things had to be done before we even broke ground,” he said. “I would think that this would the same thing here…I hope that they would do that.”” – Sure that may be what is SUPPOSED to happen, but no, Steve, that has NOT happened here, and you know this. It has been CONTINUALLY reported that it’s not happened.
Also, thinking the US EPA has “Strong Standards” is laughable to say the least, ESPECIALLY now with the current Administration not giving one iota of a damn about the Environment or the people, period. Even before the current – ahem – “leadership”, the EPA had serious issues, usually with those under the Republican Umbrella, starting with Reagan, then George W, and now, this last guy.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5922215/
So to claim that the EPA has “very strong standards” is a loaded statement and requires someone to look into it to see just what those “standards” are, and if they are, indeed, “Strong” (strong for who? Usually, strong politically and for corporations, NOT the Environment, especially if the business is Oil)
And don’t worry, Steve, you need not reply to any of this, we already know your thoughts.
Present your credentials, Elaine. Demonstrate to us and particularly those who are the targets of your ad hominem attacks, your experience and proficiency in working in oil and gas, particularly in building/operating facilites such as the proposed gas generation project. As I stated in this forum previously, without fact, words are merely fiction. In this instance, your words belie your experience and are nothing more than aggrieved invective. I will offer no further comment.
Steve, your argument that only those who have worked for fossil fuel industries have the right to have their comments taken seriously on the subject of fossil fuelled projects is self-serving and either blind or disingenuous.
Bias and conflict of interest always have to be considered in anyone who works for, or has worked for, an industry while trying to crush criticism of that industry.
The questions surrounding this gas fuelled generator are not recondite issues only comprehensible to petrochemical engineers. They’re
-What are the CO2 emissions?
-What are the effects on wildlife?
-How will extreme consumption of ground water harm aquifers and wells?
-How will wastewater be processed?
-How will diesel spills be prevented and remediated?
-What will it all cost rate payers?
-What are the alternatives?
These are questions we do not require petrochemical workers to explain to us, and positioning yourself as the only person qualified to declare this project acceptable only discredits you as a source of information.
Your experience with related projects and the environmental standards applied to them is valuable, and potentially a helpful part of the debate, but by your own comments: “I would think that this would be the same thing here…I would hope that they would do that” you don’t know if the proposed plant will be subject to those standards, with the result that your reassurances that the proposed plant will be safe, and not harm humans or the local environment in general, have to be taken with that in mind. Facts are valuable. Hopes, assumptions, and guesswork are not. More facts about this project are needed.
Follow my page for more information, if you like.
Here is the link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/944780191409931
I honestly didn’t think you’d bother to reply, Steve, as you’ve already said you would step back from any conversations with me over this. Are you sure you won’t offer any further comment at this point?
In any case, to respond to your observation – I have no credentials other than as someone who has lived in Sackville all but 3 years out of 50. I have never made any claim to be anything or anyone other than someone who had concerns with this plant mostly focused on the tie in it has with the so called United States; I leave all the environmental stuff to the experts.
Funny you again bring up “without fact words are merely fiction” and yet… you continued for quite some time to avoid my question of “Which is fact, your ‘experts’ or others?” Are you saying you now think only your experts – and your experience – are fact? I would push back on that, considering the known “facts” that go against what you’ve presented (which… makes your words merely fiction by your own claim?)
As for my words being “aggrieved invective” (nice wording by the way, had to look up invective) I think you’re putting a bit too much emotion into it. In fact, I’d love for you to point out where it was that I was harsh/insulting/abusive. I certainly am not “angry” at you, nor do I blame you for anything, except maybe the bias you have to the point of invalidating any points – valid or not – that go against your personal experiences (to which in all honesty we all have, that’s true).
If you feel truly aggrieved by the questions/comments I made above, then perhaps the issue is more a “you” thing, not a “me” thing. Certainly I’m not the only one who have made the same observations about your statements; maybe that’s something else to think on.
In any case, again, we all know your position; while I’m happy you felt the need to laud your superior knowledge as being more valid than that of others, I genuinely am sorry that you feel the hyperfocus on your words and pushback against them warrants your retreat from the topic.
Happy Spring to you.
I appreciate all those that take the time to speak to Town Council and voice opinions, democracy in action. And this past week’s town meeting allowed that in a respectful manner. With saying that, I do have concerns on Mr. Cullen’s presentation in support of the Tantramar Gas Plant. When starting off with a slide that misses the mark to represent an accurate image of what this gas plant will look like sets the table for lack of credibility on the rest of the points. The image displayed was of, I believe a gas compression plant, a far different facility than what is proposed for Tantramar. It is very easy to find specific images of what the Centre Village RIGS project, a fossil fuel peaker plant, will look like.
Please know that NB Power/ProEnergy is planning on a 32 hectare/80 acre facility with (10) combustion turbine generators for electricity generation, sitting 1.5 kms back from Rt. 940 on a 500 acre purchased property, in the middle of forests and wetlands. It sits on a sensitive section of the Chignecto Isthmus, on a pinch point of migration from land animals into NS from mainland Canada via NB and a majority Atlantic Flyway for migratory birds. It will sit in the backyards of community residents and farms. It will be fueled by either natural gas or from diesel that will sit on site, drawing from a capacity upwards of 3,000,000 gallons of diesel in storage tanks. To negate that and mis-represent the visual of what this plant will look like, contributes to a flawed presentation.
In addition, yes – there are lots of acronyms for agencies cited for oversight in making sure this project is constructed and operated properly. Although this is meant to look impressive, they are just words and agencies on paper, to give the appearance that all will be involved with making sure this runs perfectly. But, we don’t live in a perfect world and it is to be expected that this plant will have construction, maintenance and operational problems, as the track record of peaker plants has shown. Both from an environmental and public health perspective.
The perception that a provincial Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, either determinative or comprehensive, will safeguard against any problems in any stage of this project is naïve and dangerous. It is based on Industrial Science, a method to check all the boxes for a project to proceed, not to stop one. Again, words on paper of what the proponent will do in the event of environmental damage. It will not reflect reality once the damage is done.
It is also a problem to bluntly say that EPA standards are basically the gold standard. It is well known that the current US administration has rolled back major aspects of the EPA, so that fossil fueled facilities can operate with minimal oversight. This includes actively reversing air quality, water protection, and chemical safety evaluations and policies. The EPA revoked the scientific endangerment finding that underpinned U.S. efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. This is described as the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.
To place your faith in EPA standards in its current state, the one that the US based Proenergy is basing their production on is frightening. Especially when, I think it is fair to say, the investors who are backing Proenergy’s projects are those that fund Republican candidates that assist in the EPA deregulations.
Mr. Cullen stated assumptions. A poor stance to take on a project of this magnitude. I am thankful that the Town of Tantramar Council has taken the position to oppose this project. More work needs to be done to strengthen this opposition, by both the Town and its residents. There are far better and safer ways to achieve our energy needs.
Thank you for your input and passion on this issue, democracy thrives on voices like yours. But let’s be clear: this is not a municipal project. It’s a provincial one, led by NB Power to serve the entire province’s energy needs, grid reliability, renewable integration, and to avoid shortfalls for all 869,000+ New Brunswickers. Local concerns matter and will receive full review through the provincial EIA process.But loud opposition from one group doesn’t speak for everyone. Your petition reached just over 1,100 signatures, I respect the effort, but I don’t believe all those signatures were from here, seeing as Elizabeth May said her constituents were also involved.
Tantramar has 14,545 residents, while New Brunswick has 869,000 people. Many in industry and business here and across NB support dispatchable capacity like the RIGS project. We all have a say, province-wide. Being vocal does not equate to representing all of us.
My wife and I attended the presentation to council by Mr. Steve Cullen, the other night. We were happy to hear the perspective and experience he brought to the table, as it seems all we hear is ‘doom and gloom’ in the way of catastrophic consequences by those who oppose the facility. I’m not the smartest guy in the room, but feel he did a good job explaining the parameters for construction and operations.
As is usually the case and as we see here, it didnt take too long for the naysayers to jump all over him. I am not sure why these folks insist on knocking down fact and experience, with their own assumptions and rhetoric, but it is alive and well.
I recall a few years back, Ms. Novak and her husband had their hand out, lobbying TransCanada Pipelines aggressively, trying to obtain funding for their wildlife sanctuary, in the days when Energy East pipeline was being considered. Oil and gas companies do sponsor various community initiatives, including building infrastructure and funding certain interest groups. In Dawson Creek BC for example, EnCana (now Ovintiv) sponsored construction of the events centre, which has hosted national curling championships among others. It would appear that, since the sanctuary did not receive funding, what was good at one point in time for its operators, is no longer. In all probability the proponents of the gas facility will most likely have similar programs for community enhancement in the Tantramar region, when all gets going. Question is, how far down the handout line will the sanctuary be, requesting funding from them, this time around?
“As is usually the case and as we see here, it didnt take too long for the naysayers to jump all over him. I am not sure why these folks insist on knocking down fact and experience, with their own assumptions and rhetoric, but it is alive and well.”
I wasn’t aware that making comments about speeches given publicly was “not something that should be done”?
Since Steve and I have gone back and forth on the “Fact” issue and I have his POV on it, I’ll ask you – which “Facts” is it that we should go with? Which “experience”? Who has the right of way of it?
I personally try not to make assumptions (and if I do/am, I make note of it, or apologize after). It’s why I quote replies to people in any conversations I have, just so it’s clear.
I’ve not seen the online video of this meeting – I do hope to do so tonight – so perhaps I’ll get a bit more context for what was said, beyond what Bruce reported here. Maybe Steve’s presentation is better than it comes across in this article, I guess I’ll see. And if needs be, I’ll make any other observations known.
My issues with this project have nothing to do with the construction really, nor the environment issues; again it is the US connection that truly bothers me to be against it. I even agree with NB Power – we likely DO need more sources of energy for NB, and we need it sooner or later. But having a company from the one nation on this planet that is now creating such a chaotic mess and driving energy needs to be even more impacted, ESPECIALLY when that company has allegedly donated to that same source of chaos – I think questioning “why them” is pretty appropriate (and the response of “Because they were the cheapest” is NOT a valid answer, NOT anymore).
The organization that you refer to, AWI, is a not-for-profit that has, for the past 30 years been providing wildlife emergency response services to Industry here in Atlantic Canada, and in the US prior to this. To this day, we have strong working partnerships under existing contractual agreements, where we provide consultation, training and representation on exercises on an ongoing basis. We are proud of that collaborative working relationship. We did not approach TransCanada Corp. A partner to the Energy East Pipeline project requested a wildlife mitigation strategy as part of a required component to the package submitted, which we provided. When the pipeline project did not proceed, our involvement ended. It is what we do. We do not lobby. To say we were merely looking for a handout, implying begging for support is a slap in the face of any NGO or charity that regularly looks for assistance for their programs from industry and any other large corporations can help support their work.
In the case of this gas plant proposal, after working for over 40 years in the field of emergency wildlife response and seeing firsthand when things go wrong, (which is separate from our day-to-day service offerings to the NB community and government), we are voicing opposition, because of the sensitivity of the location of this project. There is great potential for profound, negative impacts on our wildlife, environment, community and overall public health that will be irreversible. We have seen for too long and been the “boots on the ground” responders when EIA strategies and subsequent EPPs for these types of industrial operations fail. This project is not needed and setting dangerous precedent of keeping fossil fuel power generation falsely relevant. There are better options from a safety, economic and environmental protection standpoint. We are all for progress if it is forward, not backwards as it relates to satisfying our community’s energy needs.
I don’t know why people think we’re stopping fossil fuel projects when the current government is fast-tracking three major national LNG projects on our national projects list. The fact that Mr. Carney believes we can still integrate fossil fuels and reach our net-zero targets says a lot. This is how natural gas helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. When burned for energy (e.g. in power plants or industry), it emits about 50% less CO₂ than coal and 15–30% less than oil per unit of energy produced. This has driven major emissions drops in places like the U.S. and Western Canada where switching from coal to gas in electricity generation cut CO₂ significantly. In Canada’s context, LNG exports (like these projects) can displace higher-emission coal in Asia, potentially lowering global GHGs -— especially with low-emission designs (e.g., electrification, and carbon capture technology). Projects like one of the ones listed below in B.C., aim for emissions ~94% below global LNG averages once fully electrified with clean hydro power.
The fact is natural gas is positioned as a ‘bridge’ fuel to renewables while supporting net-zero pathways. These are the current ones on the list:
-LNG Canada Phase 2 (Kitimat, British Columbia): Expansion to double production, making it one of the world’s largest LNG facilities. Designated as a project of national interest; would significantly boost LNG exports.
-Ksi Lisims LNG (Pearse Island, British Columbia): Led by the Nisga’a Nation (with partners like Western LNG). A floating LNG export facility touted as one of the lowest-emission globally (once electrified, emissions ~94% below average). Designated national interest; second tranche announcement in late 2025.
-North Coast Transmission Line (NCTL) (British Columbia): Supports new industrial projects, including LNG facilities like Ksi Lisims (electrification/power supply for fossil gas processing.)
https://www.youtube.com/@GlobalBEM/videos
something entirely different should be the discussion
While living on the Island a number of years ago, our neighbourhood was experiencing regular acts of vandalism. We called the Police one night and the responding officer happened to be, as he was known then, Const. Steve Cullen. Over the next hour or so, Steve listened to our concerns, made notes and outlined some measures he could take to correct the situation. When I apologized for the time we were taking from him, I recall Steve saying he was “out of service until we get this figured out.” True to his word, within one week he held a concerned citizens forum in the local community hall and 3 weeks after that, the problem was fixed. We required police again later that year and contacted his detachment, but were dismayed to hear that Steve was no longer there.
Being a small world as it is. my wife mentioned recently that there was a person by the same name, commenting periodically on this site. Last week, we watched the council meeting and confirmed our hunch.
We had a great chat the other day over coffee and it was good to catch up with Steve.
What I have to say next , as you can see being done here on this site, will most likely again be scrutinized, ridiculed and dissected line by line by those opposing the project, but here goes. For too many months, all we have heard is loud opposition to the project, with petitions and signs mixed in with snarky and derogatory comments on social media directed towards those who don’t buy into the anti gas rhetoric. Matter of fact, at least one prospective candidate for council recently self immolated over her irresponsible and inflammatory comments. She attempted a futile clarification back-pedal, but it fell on deaf ears. The scary and dire consequences claimed by the group she is part of, if the facility is built, are being seen now as outlandish and absurd in nature. Steve’s presentation finally gave the community an experienced viewpoint, which has been positively received by those I have spoken to and refuted some of the claims made by those in opposition. It has offered a voice of reason in place of the loud voices and their anti gas rhetoric. We need that in the community and I hope the project proponents are listening. If Proenergy or NBP read this and I hope they do, my opinion is that they would be well-served to bring Mr. Cullen onto their team. He has the knowledge and understanding that will go a long way to improve the proponent’s reputation in this municipality.
Charles,
Firstly, before I begin anything, I finally had the chance to view the council meeting of last week where Steve made his presentation. For clarity sake, I went into viewing his presentation WITHOUT any bias, despite previous posts to or about his content. I wanted to see what he had to say and how the council questioned him after.
Second, just for your comment about comments being “scruitinzed, ridiculed and dissected line by line” – I copy and paste to quote (line by line) what people say in order to keep my responses from being confused and to keep focus on what was said/done. After a LOT of years in various instances of online conversations and debate, I got tired of people misrepresenting what my argument was in regards to specific comments, or on my own end, forgetting what my flow of thought/point was to particular points someone said. If you think being quoted to keep focus on a specific comment is somehow wrong, that’s… not my issue.
Third – and back to the focus on Steve’s presentation – I’ll be going on just his presentation and council questions alone *at that time*, and won’t reference back to things that have come up since in question about his presentation.
I agree with Council, it was good to see someone saying they were neutral to the project make presentations to clarify what is supposed to be industry standards.
When he reached the part of his presentation that mentions the Regulatory and Compliance part, that is where – for me – the first issue pops up. He states pretty much near the start that from his experience working in other sites, that the environment is “treated very, very seriously”. If it was, then why was NB Power and ProEnergy not treating it that way? He also mentioned the limit of decibels OUT WEST of the types of engines to be used here; are there no current regulations for NB and that’s why he used out west, and not local/provincial regulations?
After the presentation was Council questions. When Mayor Black clarified what environmental protection studies that were and what are not done, he states that the two different types of studies that are done elsewhere aren’t exactly done this way in NB unless certain parameters are met and the province has decided this project did not reach the parameter of needing a comprehensive environmental study despite push from council and local residents. This has been one of the BIGGEST issues of this project and one of the most commonly remarked on issue. His response was to bring up that they were mandatory out west and in the US, then brought up the EPA – which is not a reliable source of standards, in my opinion – and then stated “I would think it would be the same for here”, to which I would say – but you were just told they were not. And it has been REPEATEDLY reported that they do not. If ‘hopes’ were a source of determination, the world would be a different place, true?
I will admit that I am in line with Councillor Phinney – that the project may be a good one, a needed one, but NB Power and ProEnergy were NOT honest from the beginning and that’s one of the other reasons why I am against this project.
(other issues I have with the project as presented by Steve I’ve already commented on so will leave it at that)
To YOUR post above:
“Steve’s presentation finally gave the community an experienced viewpoint, which has been positively received by those I have spoken to and refuted some of the claims made by those in opposition. It has offered a voice of reason in place of the loud voices and their anti-gas rhetoric.”
I can’t say whether his presentation was positively received by others or not, but I HIGHLY doubt it refuted the claims of those made in opposition; certainly it didn’t refute any of the “claims”/issues I had. As for offering a voice of reason – yes, but that voice of reason was only partly informed about the status of this project in THIS province.
Clearly the issue after reviewing this presentation, to me, seems to be that Steve was making it on the presumption that New Brunswick is like Out West and the US, when it has clearly not been operating that way. It also makes me wonder WHY he did not do his own due diligence in learning this BEFORE his presentation, especially when that information is widely available.
I DO AGREE with you, that for this – or any project – an opposing view is needed if only to keep the people involved in said projects ‘honest’. And that Steve has the experience is an added bonus. But as Councillor Tower pointed out, his presentation only helped to prove this project should NOT continue, as his arguments only showed that this project was not following what – as he said – are the standards of ALL projects like this elsewhere.
To put an end to this already long post – I’ve no issues with Steve personally, just question his continual use of his own “facts” as if they are the truth, but the “facts” of others are dismissable. I agree with you that perhaps NB Power should hire him at least as someone who can point out where they are going to go wrong in projects, and how to do them properly – at least ‘properly’ as it pertains to regulations Out West and in the US. But as it stands, there’s nothing that can save the reputation of NB Power and ProEnergy within this municipality; that ship has LONG sailed away.
Again, thanks to Steve for at least presenting an unbiased “this is how it should go” presentation for such projects. I hope that now he at least understands partly why so many are against this project since it has NOT gone ‘how it should go’ in a lot of ways.
Well, I guess that ballgame was called correctly.
Right on cue, it didn’t take long for the naysayers to dissect my last comments. As a matter of fact, the last time my work was microscopically-examined like that was as a young design engineer, way before we had computerized assistance in drafting. The ability to understand why the naysayers feel the need to refute mine and other’s supportive comments for the project, escapes me. Is it to perhaps gain some sort of self-perceived superiority over those of us who don’t share their views? Perhaps their self esteem has taken a body blow due to the recent positive groundswell of support the project has received, with their noble quest not enjoying the traction it once had. A quest, I might add, that is reminiscent of that certain British comedy group and their search for the holy chalice, complete with ‘Patsy,’ clattering coconuts and all the rest of the satire and tomfoolery.
Saying that however, I must admiit to seeing a change in tone in this latest rebuttal, which to me was less of an attack dog position and in some ways, moreso of a conciliatory approach. While chewing the fat last week over a coffee with Mr. Cullen, he stated he was open to any discussion for and against the project, but drew the line when ad hominem attacks or attempts to discredit occurred. He doesn’t strike me as the type of guy to dismiss the viewpoints of others, except in situations where the aforementioned occurs. My guess is that the EUB will rule favorably for the project in the coming weeks and if that indeed transpires, let’s hope cooler heads can prevail. The last thing we need as a community is to sustain a fiasco like that in Rexton a few years back. We don’t want or need rioters burning vehicles, obstructing police and disrupting the peace of our municipality. There is never a cause that justifies wanton destruction of property or violent civil disobedience. Unfortunately, as I learned yesterday, it appears the local wildlife sanctuary has formed an alliance with the group responsible for the public disorder there. If the cars start burning and the riot squad is called out, you can direct your attention to them.
I wonder if I should change my name to “Naysayers”?
How about “Patsy?” (anybody else hear the coconuts in the background?)
Patsy would suggest I am somehow being taken advantage of.
Unless you know something I don’t – not the case, Charles.
As for the coconuts, depends if a swallow brought them or not.
So on another, more serious note – oil per barrel is now 108$ (real price or benchmark?) – after an attack by Israel on the South Pas Gas Field in Iran. Iran is, of course, likely (if not already) retaliating.
All this will surge oil prices higher, which means this plant will be even more expensive than before (even if we use LNG, there’s also Diesel, and the construction costs).
Does anyone honestly think this plant is now economically feasible? That already heavily in debt NB Power can afford this (or rather, put NB in FURTHER debt to the Lunatic States to the south of us?)
When will the stupidity south be enough to make people realize maybe this isn’t the way to go right now?
LOL, this war’s gonna be over quick. By the time that plant finally fires up in 2028, oil prices will have dropped like a rock.
Are you sure about that? You honestly think this “War” will stop quickly, and oil prices will drop?
Do you know something the rest of the world doesn’t?
Well, if you think you’re able to predict oil markets and endless wars in 2028, then maybe you have no right to criticize my right to point out this ‘war’ will be likley be long over by then. Look in the mirror, Elaine, what do you know that the rest of us don’t? Hypocritical much?
Not predicting anything, Allen. Rather it’s relying on what the experts suggest likely could happen and the reality of the situation going on in the Middle East. You know, the War that is not a War that is going on? Have you heard about it? Have you kept up to date on what’s going on? Does it interest you enough to dig deeper than what the ‘MSM’ says, or isn’t saying? I never said that the war would last until 2028, but right now it doesn’t have to, the damage is literally done. Even if – as you suggest – the war is “over quick”, the damage from LNG in Quatar alone has made prices screwy.
https://naturalgasintel.com/news/qatarenergy-says-damage-at-lng-facilities-could-take-years-to-repair-upending-supply-outlook/
And then there’s South Pars.
https://www.dw.com/en/iran-war-and-energy-prices-attack-on-south-pars-raises-more-energy-fears/a-76432233
That’s just gas/nat-gas… that doesn’t even discuss Helium.
I just asked why you thought the war would end and oil prices will drop. Sorry that asking you those questions upset you. But I mean asking if you knew something we didn’t when you sound so adamant about the war ending and the price drop did kind’a make sense, did it not? I mean at least I could give examples of where my stance is coming from.
So, where was I hypocritical, Allen?