Site C is rife with problems. Not the least of which is the geology.

Again, with mind set, there does not need to be any more dams.

BC is on the ring of fire. And, we have many places where hot springs occur. Why there is no development of them with regards to thermal of natural steam turbines is beyond me.

Geo-thermal production if electricity is a cost effective way to get power with little environmental impact.

Put this baby to rest and move on to discover ways to produce power reasonably.

This is wrong until all the environmental issues are resolved and the results are in. If the first nations believe that there is something wrong with this then, there is. I would believe them before the Liberal government.
I am appalled that 7 planes were used to go to this PHOTO OP! The tax payers even paid for the press to get their arses up there. This government acts like elitists with an unlimited supply of money while selling BC off to the highest bidders. I wonder if they used the millions of surplus money that they rapped from the ICBC coffers?
WAKE UP! Please.

Under NAFTA, after we have exported the power generated from Site C to the United States, presumably at a rate higher than what BC Hydro now charges British Columbia consumers and industries (even with the recent rate increases), will we be able to access this power for our own needs in future at anything less than that export rate?

If we cannot, then where is the 'natural advantage' to doing some of the things the author of the piece above seems to envision we will be doing in the future? After all those construction jobs have ended, and those who've had them have racked up debts on houses and other consumables that they can then no longer pay?

For surely, from past experiences with 'mega-projects' we should realise by now that the PRICES of everything will RISE the minute the paychecks start flowing, if not before.

Are all those wonderous "job creating" things like 'value-added', for instance, and all the other great "job" creating industries he imagines are going to locate here, ever going to materialise WITHOUT cheaper power? Have they, to the extent once imagined forty years ago, been created, or sustained to that degree, even with it?

Unlike in WAC Bennett's day, where BC Hydro actually encouraged industry by ensuring we had a "made in BC" power rate, amongst other things, we'll have no such advatage now, after the Site C power is committed for export.

And those export dollars, that some seem to imagine are going to swell the government's coffers enough to provide for our every need and comfort ala 'government', will be totally inadequate in what they will BUY in the face of the inflation of PRICES the project has generated.

We'll end up further in debt at the end of construction, both personally (overall) and governmentally as well. With more of our incomes continually being proportinonally syphoned off in taxes to try to service it.

Whether Site C, per se, is a good idea or a lousy one, I can't really say. But from the standpoint of what it's construction will mean to our 'cost of living', and the long-term effects of a rapidly increasing 'inflation' of that, there's no question that this is a serious issue that needs much consideration.

socredible do you have proof the power is committed for export.

Here is the line you should be interested in, "it will expand our province’s ability to provide a reliable backup to renewable new intermittent energy sources, such as wind, run-of-river, and solar."

That is the dirty little secret about wind, run-of-river, and solar, you need backup. In effect our power generation and costs will be doubled to keep the Suzuki's of the world happy. About costs go over to The Tyee and see what kind of profits IPP's are making from the huge contracts Hydro was forced into by the libs.

Folks we are being fleeced big time.

I pay about 2 dollars a day to light my house, and I would like to see those kids of rates continue. If Site C will do that, so be it. How exactly are we getting fleeced?

When one looks at “mega projects” there are many aspects of the economy which will change. The inflationary change is greatest in the immediate area both geographical and industrial sector of the project.

When looking at sustainability and benefit one needs to look at the long term as well as the short term. A project may be advantageous over the long term. Building capacity such as Site C will likely provide builds energy capacity.

Given that the long term goals are beneficial, one has to ensure that the negative impacts of short term conditions are mitigated. Thus, maintaining short term economic stability, such as reducing local and even regional inflationary pressures, would be an important aspect of project assessment.

The phrase “short term pain for long term gain” comes to mind as a last resort. One of the ways to reduce local and short term inflationary pressures would be to lengthen the project duration to reduce the rate of work done. I would think that a project such as the building of a dam and its associated work would be one of the types of projects more amenable to that approach.

We have time on this project from the looks of it. Just think of what would happen if there was huge pressure to implement the project. The ability to mitigate local inflationary pressures would be tremendous.

Look at the widening of the Cariboo connector. It would be a mega project if it were to be done the way the Coquihalla was done. As it is, it is a long term project which will provide the regions with the transportation link which will eventually be virtually mandatory.

Are inflationary tendencies a reason to can a project? I say it is one of the aspects that has to be addressed in any complex mega-project.

Gus:-"Are inflationary tendencies a reason to can a project? I say it is one of the aspects that has to be addressed in any complex mega-project."
-----------------------------------------
I don't have any problem with that, Gus. But ARE they going to be addressed? Or are the supporters of this project all so far off in la-la land that all they can see are the "jobs" that are going to be created? "Jobs" are fine, but what about the "incomes"? Will they be enough to liquidate "prices" that'll be increasing (for everyone) faster than those incomes can be distributed? With increased debt bridging the gap? That is certainly not sustainable under the way the financial system currently operates.

I'd rather see some co-gen units approved around the province, and leave the farm land for future generations.

Seamutt, I don't believe there's the slightest doubt that the Site C power will be exported, or only available to us here in BC if we pay "world price" for it.

Imagine where we would be if our ancestors, who came out here from wherever and built up this country, with the idea of having "life more abundant" than where they were, had been told before they came that the only way they could use any of the resources here would be if they paid "world price" for them. Why even bother coming? They could've stayed right where they were and done that. Yet that's where we are with this project, and this ideologue we have as Premier.