NDP Say Yes to Kemano Tunnel Completion
Thursday, July 19, 2012 @ 4:01 AM
Prince George, B.C. – The leader of the Provincial NDP caucus, Shane Simpson, says they are supporting the completion of the construction of the second tunnel at Kemano.
“ We are taking RioTinto Alcan at their word that this is a back up tunnel” says Simpson “ but we see that their request to increase their water use, is consistent with the 1997 agreement which was developed with the NDP government at the time.”
That government was under the leadership of Mike Harcourt. Under the 1997 agreement, Alcan was given permission to divert a maximum 170 cubic meters of water per second from the Nechako river for use in the one tunnel. The agreement followed the cancellation of the Kemano Completion Project which called for a second tunnel to be constructed to produce hydro electricity. Critics say this "back Up tunnel" is Kemano Completion by another name.
Currently, RTA uses 144 cms, and has asked to have that increased to 147cms. The need to revise the existing water license comes in the fact the original license only applies to water for one tunnel, not two. The addition of a second tunnel back up or not, changes the face of the license.
“We think the Minister should explain a little more about why all of a sudden he chose not to sign off on this matter” adds Simpson. The Minister in charge, Pat Bell, says he is holding off until there has been consultation with three communities which can feel the impacts of any decision on RTA activities: Kitimat, Vanderhoof and Prince George.
Kitimat City Council has given unconditional support to the completion of the tunnel, Vanderhoof has made it clear the steward of the river is the Province, and Prince George has yet to make a decision as RTA will make a presentation to City Council on July 30th.
Comments
The whole story as reported is incomplete!
“Under the 1997 agreement, Alcan was given permission to divert a maximum 170 cubic meters of water per second from the Nechako river for use in the one tunnel.”
So, WHY does RTA have to ask for permission to increase the flow from 144 cms to 147 cms in the first tunnel when they are already allowed to use as much as 170 cms?
Has the first tunnel reached all it can handle at a flow of 144 cms? If so, in order to add another 3 cms RTA is willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a second tunnel which is not claimed to be for that purpose but only as a standby in case the first tunnel has a collapse (as it did once about fifty years ago) and needs to be shut down?
Did Alcan do a number on the NDP when it asked for and got permission to use as much as 170 cms, knowing full well that a second tunnel would be required for that?
Would it be possible to get ALL the facts on this matter first and eliminate the reigning confusion and put the claims to rest that it is all just a sneaky plan to complete Kemano Two?
I couldn’t agree with you more Prince George….the justification for the second tunnel as presented by RTA’s Mr. Hanning is very confusing. What is to stop RTA from applying for a second and new water licence once the 2nd tunnel is completed? As Minister Bell stated a water flow licence is not needed until after the tunnel is built. The statement from Mr. Hanning that the existing water licence of 170m3/sec was granted on the premis of having 1 1/2 tunnels just doesn’t fly, nor does it make good legislative sense even back in the Mike Harcourt or WC Bennett days.
Here we go again — what a specious argument. Can Ben Meisner not just get on with his life and leave people in Kitimat to get on with their’s… He has been a know-it-all nuisance for 20 years — and nothing ever changes. The Nechako flows, occasionally floods Vanderhoof, fish are fine…let’s just get this done.
PrinceGeorge:
As stated in the story, “The need to revise the existing water license comes in the fact the original license only applies to water for one tunnel, not two. The addition of a second tunnel back up or not, changes the face of the license.”
hence the need to amend the licence….
Elaine Macdonald
We need more people like achy running this country.
That way we will all prosper, at least until achy’s plan see’s nothing left of our environment for our children.
All that matters is your wallet hey achy?
Achy, you gave me a chuckle. Complain about the guy, then post, ha, ha.
Dragon: “That way we will all prosper, at least until achy’s plan see’s nothing left of our environment for our children.”
Nice rhetoric. Do it for the children. What do you do for a living?
Thanks for your reply, Elaine!
“Alcan was given permission to divert a maximum 170 cubic meters of water per second from the Nechako river for use in the one tunnel.”
That’s it!
RTA states that it wants to increase the flow by 3 cms from the present 144 to 147.
Since RTA already HAS permission to go as high as 170, what exactly is the need for any amendment?
IF the first tunnel can handle 170 cms and RTA is using only 144 cms and it only wants to increase by 3 cms, what is the problem? Why doesn’t it just do it? It already has the previous permit from the NDP.
Why doesn’t RTA leave the increase of 3 cms totally out of the picture and come clean and say: We are applying for a permit to complete the second tunnel and to amend the license because we need it as a backup in case the first tunnel needs to be shut down because of some rockfalls from the ceiling or whatever? That would be believable. The 3 cms argument as a justification for a half billion dollar new tunnel doesn’t pass the smell test!
It smells fishy to me and if it smells something is not right!
Achy, Alcan agreed not to take so much water that the Nechako turns into a little creek during the summer! Perhaps you should read the agreement. Are you in favour of destroying the fauna in a river just so that RTA can produce a few more tons of aluminum? When you sign something you are obligated to stick to the terms.
No need to attack Ben Meisner. He tackles issues that virtually nobody else has the backbone left to stand up for!
Ust thought I would bring this to the front again for information.
Dear Mr. Mesenier
Please allow me to provide a fact base to your article about our Back Up Tunnel Project:
1. The existing tunnel in Kemano is nearly 60 years old. Recent engineering studies including underwater inspections inside the tunnel in 2010 and 2011 are inconclusive and therefore indicates a degree of risk for tunnel collapse.
2. Rio Tinto Alcan examined several options for ensuring tunnel integrity, resulting in the proposed Back Up Tunnel Project plan.
3. The regulatory process with Canadian Environmental Assessment was followed which included in depth consultation and communication in the watershed region. Approval was received in June 2012.
4. Rio Tinto Alcan also initiated the process to have the definition of KEMANO WORKS properly described in the Final Water License such that it includes two tunnels and not 1 ½ tunnels. Otherwise, we would not have authorization to use the second tunnel.
5. Rio Tinto Alcan is not asking for a change in the amount of water in its water license. The water license already allows for diversion of 170 m3/s which is sufficient for our needs.
6. The Back Up Tunnel Project does not include any new generation capacity; no effect on Reservoir operations and no more water.
8. In summary, this is a Risk Mitigation Project that will cost Rio Tinto Alcan over US$500 million; It will employ close to 400 workers during construction; it will assist with much needed flood mitigation; and it will bring an opportunity for economic benefit to the watershed region and indeed northern British Columbia.
Paul Henning
Rio Tinto Alcan, VP Strategic Projects Western Canada
Mr. Henning thank you for presenting RTA’s second tunnel rationale. OK no new water licence, no intention of producing more power above the existing water flow licence of 170 m3/s with the second tunnel…as long as this is truly about tunnel integrity and not tunnel vision then I’ll join the NDP and assume RTA’s justification for the 2nd tunnel is the truth and nothing but the truth…..how utterly foolish of me and others to assume there might be a hidden agenda ;-)
too bad the first tunnel wasn’t built to handle the diversion capacity of the first legislated water licence of 170m3/sec and now a second one needs to be built to reach that capacity. As I mentioned in another blog it doesn’t make sense that the gov’t of the day would grant a water flow licence based on 1/1/2 tunnels.
Seamutt, I assume that you are Mr. Henning because you did not put the 8 points into quotation marks and you signed with your name.
What amount of water flow can the first tunnel with the condition it is in handle?
Obviously it is presently supplying water at the rate of 144 m3/sec.
It’s been reported that this is a project costing somewhere between $500 and $700 million dollars. For a meager additional water flow? That’s a lot of coin to invest for such a little return…..almost beyond belief. But I guess if it’s good business practice I’d better get out there and buy a new $70,000 pickup in case mine fails.
PG well excuse me for not putting it into quotation marks. I am not MR. Henning where did you dream that one up from. You did not read what I wrote, I brought it forward from an earlier post on this site, for information.
Another earlier post of mine “seamutt”—
If the second tunnel can be used for spill during periods of high water control then they should not be held to 147 cubic meters. Spilling through the tunnel could help reduce high releases into the Nechako. This could be one reason for the second tunnel as it gives RTA more water control options and be able to get around flow restrictions into the Nechako.
No need for a dyke which would not have worked anyhow. Money saved for the PAC not potholes:)
Which Ben answered—-
“The second tunnel or for that matter the existing tunnel cannot be used to divert water to prevent a flood because there are generators in the bottom of the shafts.
The completion of tunnel 2 will not have a bypass to send water down the Kemano to prevent a flood the Nechako.
Other dams have a spill way at the power site, Alcan does not.”
Which is true to a point but a valve could be included to allow a bypass thus a spill as Mr. Henning states in the above ” it will assist with much needed flood mitigation” Maybe Mr. Henning will clarify.
seamutt:”I am not MR. Henning where did you dream that one up from. You did not read what I wrote, I brought it forward from an earlier post on this site, for information.”
I didn’t want to step on anybody’s toes and just wanted to know if it was indeed Mr. Henning making a contribution to the discussion. I didn’t dream up anything. I did not see an earlier post from you on this site and posting Mr. Henning’s 8 point would have required quotation marks including his name and title.
Too bad it was not Mr. Henning because I really would like to ask him a few questions, like what is that baloney about an additioal 3 cm3/sec all about.
Looks like I am not the only one who wants to know!
I wonder where all these smart people with
all this info come from? University maybe,
I say if the NDP approves of it, maybe let it go. Why? Rumour has it they will be the next government, business people are really concerned that our economy will be in the dumps.Hmm, is the green party going to run ?
Seems to me that at the present time Alcan has a surplus of power, which it sells to Hydro. This surplus is a result of shutting down a couple of **pot** lines a few years ago.
Once the new plant is completed apparently it will use all the available power, and Alcan will produce more ingots than they presently do. In additon there will be 400 full time jobs lost.
So it looks like RTA is well on its way to making huge profits,however there is a fly in the ointment. If they no longer have any additional power to sell to Hydro, they will lose that revenue.
My question is. Will the increase in water through both tunnels, result in Alcans ability to produce more power, which in turn allows them to continue to sell to BC Hydro??
Will some of the increase in power (if it exists)be used to run the LNG plants proposed for the area??? If so that would eliminate some of the arguments about power being used in the area of Kitimat, which was a big issue in the past.
Comments for this article are closed.