Site C Dam
 

The BC Government is set to make a major announcement on Monday. Most believe it will involve the infamous Site C Dam project.

Justine Hunter
Victoria — From Saturday's Globe and Mail

The B.C. government will make a major energy announcement at the Peace River on Monday, fuelling speculation that it will give a green light to the long-shelved plans to build the Site C hydroelectric dam.

BC Hydro is inviting officials to what is being billed as a "clean energy workshop" at the W.A.C. Bennett Dam on Monday, near the proposed location for Site C on the Peace River. In the town of Hudson’s Hope – the closest community – the airstrip is being prepared for the arrival of Premier Gordon Campbell the same day.

It’s a long way to go for a workshop when the legislature is in session, but Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom was coy on Friday.

“We are going to have an event on Monday,” he said. “We are going to be talking about some things.”

Mr. Lekstrom has promised to announce this spring whether the government will support the construction of the province’s first major hydroelectric dam in decades.

His government has set a target to regain self-sufficiency for electricity, and Site C would help fill the gap with 900 megawatts of capacity.

The proposal for a third dam on the Peace River has been around for at least three decades, and plans have been dusted off and then re-shelved several times.

Last fall, BC Hydro delivered an updated feasibility study to Mr. Lekstrom.

If the government proceeds to stage three, it would still have to pass an environmental assessment that could take two years. If it succeeds, that would be followed by a design phase and bidding process that could result in a $6-billion-plus construction project in the north just in time for the 2013 provincial election.

“Stage three still requires a great deal of consultation and accommodation with first nations,” Mr. Lekstrom noted Friday. “But stage three is saying you wish to go ahead with it.”

Mr. Lekstrom’s Peace River South riding is divided over the project, but the Energy Minister has touted the concept as a clean, renewable energy source. He is expected to bring in a new Clean Energy Act later this spring that aims to build an industry in green power exports.

However, the proposed megaproject faces opposition, particularly from residents of the Peace River, who say the massive dam, which would be 1,100 metres in length with a reservoir 83 kilometres long, would be far from environmentally friendly.

Critics note that the dam would flood a significant swath of Northern B.C.’s prime agricultural land, along with a wildlife migration corridor and numerous heritage sites with significance ranging from fossils to the gold rush.

Hudson’s Hope mayor Karen Anderson said she’ll attend the event at the dam, but she opposes the project. The district council passed a motion two years ago against Site C and, based on the phone calls to her office Friday morning, she said, her community has not had a change of heart.

“My position right now, as always, is that I do not want any negative impacts to our community,” she said. “If they say they are moving forward, our motion can’t stop it. So the bottom line is, we need to have compensation.”

Ms. Anderson fears that the few jobs in the community of 1,100 will dry up as a result of the project. “We will become the end-of-the-road community … that’s not acceptable.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1537772/

:tup: 'Bout time.

Pretty sure they will only be announcing that they are proceeding to the next stage, not that they are actually going ahead. Still I do expect it to be greenlighted before 2013.

Also please include the link to the storey otherwise it needs to be deleted, thanks.

Source: Vancouver Sun

:previous: So Lake Agassiz flooded how much of Canada's land mass before its ice dam burst? Rivers were blocked by landslides etc for hundreds of millions of years. Sure some greenhouse gasses will be created during construction but that is far outweighed by the years of hydroelectric power Site C will create. If California doesn't want the power, we'll use it Canada, thank you very much.

This is one of the few projects I am against, BC is a very rugged, mountainous area. I believe that less than 10 to 15% of the province is suitable for agriculture and/or settlement, we should be holding on to every parcel of lowlands we have, not flooding them.

Even at the cost of energy independence and a multi-billion dollar industry?

Agreed! 100 per cent!:tup:

So we can build nuclear, like the French? How green is that?

The area that will be flooded is a microclimate that you simply do not find in that part of the province and will be opposed by the locals like you wouldn't believe. Especially since the power is all going to be shipped south.

As for energy requirements, if we're going to talk about carbon-neutral power then we need to start talking nuclear if we're not willing to go the hydro route. Think of how many plug-in vehicles we are going to start using in the next ten to fifteen years; where is the power going to come from?

The only alternative to Site C is Nuclear? Strawman alert?

No of course not, there's coal, natural gas, or super high prices and the threat of rolling blackouts. :rolleyes:

This is a no-brainer. Hydro power may not be perfectly green, but it's damn close (pun intended). Environmentalists can't see the forest for the trees. China is building how many coal fired plants every year? And we are bitching about this?

I want this province and this country to enjoy some level of economic success. Why we keep trying to shoot ourselves in the foot is beyond me.

It's such a shame that reading is a vanishing skill. So many misunderstandings might be averted.

The issue here is between Site C and another site, not hydro and nuclear.

Come back when you have read the post properly.

Sigh.

If California won't take power from Site C because its too large to qualify as a green source, the alternative is to use that power locally in the north, and have any/all of our new smaller green projects used to supply power to California, starting with the new wind turbine atop Grouse.

What to do with the Site C power? Sell it to Alberta to cook the oil sands to get our needed gasoline &tc. There was an article in The Guardian a few years ago that laid out the argument that Alberta / Saskatchewan could build one or more nuclear plants in the northern parts of their provinces to supply electricity and steam for use in the oil sands. Alberta had the need to exploit the Oil Sands, and Saskatchewan has the uranium that can be upgraded to nuclear plant grade.

Apparently the various nuclear construction firms from the US and Europe have made trips to Fort McMurrray, Edmonton, Regina and Calgary to check out the situation.

Experts asked to probe nuclear plants
http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/Art...true&e=1829360

Really? And what is "another site" for a dam capable of producing as much power as Site C?

The patrimony of cheap, clean power BC inherited as a result of WAC Bennet's foresight has allowed this province to prosper.

Site C has been on the books since the 1970's but was shelved due to the early 1980's mini-depression, public opposition, and the Revelstoke dam coming on-stream in 1984. Site A (Bennett Dam) and Site B (Peace Canyon dam) have already been built along the Peace.

The lead-up time to completion for Site C will take at least another decade.

We have Manitoba Hydro building new dams with multi-billion power export agreements with the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Ditto Quebec Hydro. These long-term power purchase agreements provide the revenue to pay back the capital costs. Just makes good business sense.

Time for BC Hydro to also embark on a similar strategy.

I'm with Pat McGeer on this one:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...3-b7aad7684cac

ETA: Looks like that will never happen:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...river-dam.html

Go Gordo Go!

Wow, this forum seems to get worse every month.

Why dont we just dam the Fraser while we are at it as well! Because we all know these river's and their lowlands have no economic, environmental or cultural value besides producing "clean" energy.

Also the fact that many on here refer to dams as "clean energy" implies they actually know very little about their environmental impacts.

I far more support small run of the river projects (if handled properly in regards for fish access) than more of these mega dams.

Also, why no localize energy far more than we have? Seriously, there is so much potential for solar, wind, geothermal, even tidal that we seem so reluctant to explore.

How many wind farms do we have in BC? 1 non operating turbine?

How many rooftop solar panels to kick in during sunny days? Only 1 or 2 locations?

Yes these technologies are not perfect, but neither were fossil fuel based technologies when they were first being explored and implemented.

Do people here even understand how much usable land has already been lost in BC due to dams?

Also, do they even understand how much of the energy generated in the Peace is lost due to the long trip the electricity has to make to any populated areas along the transmission lines? It is incredibly inefficient.

Seriously, we only have a small percent of land that is suitable for agriculture and general living, why don't we just flood it all! (as some far right wing American politicians have suggested, creating the world's largest reservoir in the Great Basin).

If we must build more dams (which I really don't think we do) then how about building them in high terrain areas, away form the mild, low lying warm micro climate valleys we have, such as the Peace River.

I have a feeling this is one topic where I am going to be disagreeing with the majority on this forum.

Going to be fun!

Don't worry Metro, you are not alone. I also think this is crazy. They biggest knock against most of the truly “clean” sources of power is that they are not consistent enough, that is when it isn’t sunny or windy you don’t get enough power. People forget that we have all of these dams already that can act like batteries to store energy (water) when we have electricity flowing in from other sources and then release energy when needed.

In fact the whole myth that we are energy importers is based around this concept. Hydro imports energy from the US at night when it is cheap so they can preserve water in their reservoirs to produce power in the daytime when it is expensive and sell it back to them at a profit. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is smart that they do this , and it means cheaper power for me, but why not expand the practice to allow for an expansion of lower impact technologies.

It's not. However, France lies in a non-seismic zone (i.e.) in the middle of a tectonic plate, far from a fault line, and there is very low risk of an earthquake cracking it open.

Interestingly enough, Japan is 100 per cent powered by nuclear, too, and as you know, lies in a VERY seismic region. Shortly after I left living there, an earthquake (fairly mild, no more than a 5.5) DID crack a reactor open not far from Tokyo. Fortunately everything was contained, and the steam got out, though containing radioactivity didn't seem to harm anybody. .... Nevertheless, that's cutting it rather fine.

However, on principle, I am against the site C dam if it buries agricultural land in any way.

And look at Williston Lake now. Not having been properly logged off before the dam, the submerged portions have petrified trees poking through the water, rendering it unsuitable even for recreation. Perhaps my views are simplistic. I won't deny it. But growing up in BC I saw too many lakes and valleys destroyed by hydro-electric projects.

Metro-One, to address a few of your comments...

A large scale dam such as the one proposed at Site C is preferable over wind/solar/tidal etc. because it provides a firm and reliable source of power.

Site C, although it does have it's drawbacks, is on the Peace river which already has two other dams. The damage to the river is already done from those dams so the only real negative impact of Site C is the land lost upstream.

I am of the view that the benefits of this project outweigh the costs. Demand for electricity is only going to become greater as electric cars become more popular and people accumulate more electronics. If given the choice between other sources of firm power such as coal or nuclear, I'm sure most people would opt for the loss of a relatively small area of farmland.

Regarding your comments on damming the Fraser or other rivers in BC. That would never happen because of all the silt that those rivers carry. Just look to China to see what happens when you try and dam a silty river.

An Ipsos-Reid poll from back in June, 2005 with the attitudes of British Columbians toward Site C:

http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/...on_emergin.pdf

Isn't the trend to many distributed and diverse small-scale power generation sources, rather than relying on a few large-scale plants? So by what logic do fewer large-scale plants provide "firm and reliable" sources of power? Distant hydroelectric power projects serving major metropolitan areas require not just destruction of the immediate vicinity, but also a corridor of land for hundreds of kilometers from source to customer. This doesn't include the percentage of the energy lost in transmission over the wires.

Do a few farms in Northern BC matter? Yes. Its short sighted to systematically sacrifice non-renewable, arable land when its also becoming clear that relying on imported food is both destructive to local agriculture and risky business to rely on vast (and energy consuming) global transportation networks. Northern Europe is finding this out with the (so far) week-long disruption to air freight.

I grew up there and this dam has been hated as long as I can remember - its going to affect a lot of people

It is considered firm and reliable because, unlike micro hydro, you can store water to release at a later date. The trend in North America has been towards small hydro projects because A) most suitable sites already have dams on them B) modern regulations make all the environmental impact studies so comprehensive that it takes decades before a dam is built C) private industry is getting into power generation but can't afford projects that cost billions.

I'm not suggesting that we should return to an era where these massive hydroelectric dams are built anywhere. What I am saying is that the Peace River already has suffered the the negative impacts from the other dams, so we might as well fully harness the power generating potential because Sites A & B are never going to be taken out of service.

The concern about a transmission line corridor would be valid, if there wasn't already one there servicing the other two dams.

As for the loss of agricultural land, from my understanding, much of the land lost could be used for agriculture but is not presently. If the land really was that vital it would have already been used. I don't see how this land could be prime agricultural land when the growing season is relatively short compared to land in southern BC and the US.

It has been shown that small scale local farms are less efficient than large scale, distant farms. Economies of scale show real benefits in this area.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_f...nmental_impact

My dad worked on both the Revelstoke and Mica dams, and is constantly surprised that we still haven't built Site C. If it was done back then with the manpower and equipment still in the area it would've been done a fair bit cheaper, not to mention it would've already been paid off like the other dams now are.
That said we have learned a lot over the years and any dam built today won't resemble the disaster that some of the previous dams left behind. This dam would produce 30% of the power of it's big brother but with a reservoir only 5% the size. It's the ultimate in efficiency as it's reusing the same water.
As others have said dams are like giant batteries that complement other green sources perfectly. They can be almost instantly cranked up unlike most other powerplants and be shut down just as quickly storing energy when not needed.
I see people complain about the loss of agricultural land up there when it's of less value then any of the land being gobbled up in the fraser valley. We do need to protect Agricultural land, but lets start here.
If the province were to replace that argiculutral land with a equal or greater amount of higher quality would peoples complaints subside?

Wind power and hydro compliment each other very well, but BC hasn't come anywhere close to building out the amount of potential wind we could have online while keeping our grid stable.

That being said the economics of large scale projects like Site C blow away smaller scale projects and wind power. Even if we can't sell this power to California at special green power rates we can't charge a small fortune due to the variable power output hydro affords us.

I think anything we can do to increase our peak output and maximize other cheap forms of base load should be done. It just makes too much economic sense. Even if site C gets built, we should continue to add generating capacity to existing dams then start to bring on wind to offset the amount of draw on the hydro plants in off peak hours, selling as much of our power as peak load to the Americans as we can.

The other thing to remember is that wind power isn't reliable. The nice thing about a damn is you can store water behind it and run the water through when power demand surges and hold it back when it doesn't. With wind turbines, it just goes when there is wind. They're great for adding onto the grid, but any engineer will tell you that you need a stable base. Site C gives you that.

You'd have to convince BCers to cut their demand for electricity by a huge amount in order to avoid bring on another supply like this on stream. People might pay lip service to that, but watch the public squeal when you raise hydro rates to force people to conserve.

Article in the paper today was just saying how this dam might not fulfill some of the underlying goals of the project - that is to be an exporter of power to our southern neighbours. California buys green energy only from sources no bigger than 30 MW. Site C will be 900MW, and is considered "Big Hydro", so to California, the environmental impact of these large projects undermines the greenness of the energy itself...

I'm too lazy to search the actual article, someone plz post link =)

I'm pretty sure that just means they don't pay an extra surcharge for green power rather than normal power. We still get to screw them by making them pay for peak power spikes in demand.

I'm unfamaliar with how power exports work between BCHydro and California, but it's possible that we still leverage site C by simply stating all the power they are buying comes from the small ipps and the site C power is used locally.

I know the Calgary C-Train used to brag that it's 100% powered by windmills but obviously it simply had a contract to buy all the power it required from that supplier, where the power actually came from would've be impossible to tell and most likely not always wind powered.

Thanks Carole James. Come back when you have an alternative solution, not more whining.

Unicorn farts aren't going to power this province.

Its not that the land can't be used for agriculture, but the land has already been grabbed by the gov't decades ago when Site C was a 'sure thing'. Then when Site C wasn't going to happen, the gov't offered to lease the land back to the farmers (the previous owners of the land) on annual-renewal basis. Anyone who understands farming knows that you don't use the land on a seasonal or annual basis - good farmers have cyclical plans for using their land that can last five, ten or more years. Without knowing whether they will be able to use the land again next year, who would want to invest in a multi-year cycle of agricultural land use when the gov't can cancel the annual lease mid-cycle?

We could probably do it that way.

The peak power works really well in our favor though. We sell them expensive power during the day during peak demand, then buy back more power at night which is dirt cheap because we can turn our dams off, but they effectively can't. It could be essentially the same thing with the wind power and hydro dam, we bank the wind power into the reservoir system like a giant battery where the energy is simply hydro capacity not used. The we sell if off when they want to pay the most to buy our "wind" power. I don't think they actually care where the electrons are coming from, just that the money is going to the source thats contractually bound to put X number of GWh into the grid.

Come on; make an effort. Where's the whining? Apart from the nostalgia.

The argument that if Site C is not built then we will necessarily have to build coal and nuclear generators is a strawman argument and patently absurd. Try again Gordo. If you had read my post you would have understood that was my point.

Methane generators or digesters produce electricity, so yes, in a small way unicorn farts could contribute to power this province.
:jester:

Nuff said. It's getting childish.

lezard, you already mentioned that Site C was only one of a variety of sites under consideration. This has been shown to be false, unless you have some information that nobody else does.

I ask again, what's your alternative for the power we will require?

Firstly, I did not say that there are other sites "UNDER CONSIDERATION". Again read my post, slowly this time.

Alternatives? Conservation for one. Higher hydro prices to encourage conservation. Tax breaks for home renovations that target badly insulated homes. Mandatory Energy ratings for consumer devices, such as they have in Europe. Banning stand-by mode on all non essential electronic equipment. What? Interfere in my god given right to waste whatever I want? Bolshevik!

How about the use of alternative energy - wind and solar - to pump water back up into already existing reservoirs and using the reservoirs for hydro as well. Nah! To much work!

Finally, the province could identify sites around the lower Mainland that would serve as smaller hydro generating facilities. Scoundrel! That would ruin our pristine playgrounds.

Where does it all end? When every last Valley is filled with water because no one wants to give up their Playstations and Poptarts? You do realise we will then need Nuclear and Coal generators?

We happily consume as much as Germany or France with only half of the population. But no, there's no room for conservation!

But what do I know. Eh? You already know it all don't you?

Farmland: the best farmland seems to be along waterways (areas along site C being no exception), but certainly putting greater restrictions on building on the Fraser delta rather than farming it would be preferable--should we ask the government to expand the agricultural land reserve in the Fraser delta in exchange for land lost in the Peace? Perhaps doing something radical like making it difficult or impossible to build offices, shops and homes on land that could be used for agriculture? Richmond wouldn't be very happy with this idea.

Storage potential: a dam certainly does have the advantage over say wind power of having huge built-in storage potential. I'm not saying dams are a bad thing, just the scale and

Damage already done: the Peace River already has two dams, so whats the problem with adding another? The problem is this is a large dam with lots of upstream impact. There are many precedents, but again... does fewer large dams equal responsible stewardship and management of resources? Wouldn't more, smaller dams serving local markets be a better approach? This think so, but this is an open question.

There are some really interesting questions and observations at the following page: http://commons.bcit.ca/recovery/history.html; part of a site hosted at BCIT on River Recovery (http://commons.bcit.ca/recovery).

To me, its a question of reversing BC's long-standing history of raping the land and concentrating our intervention and use of the land in productive and thoughtful ways. We live in a beautiful place with an amazing ecosystem and abundance of resources. I think we should localize our impact and use of the land. And to the overall theme of these forums, that may mean concentrating our cities and towns into smaller, more vertical footprints.

Site C may yet be a sacrifice worth making in balance of alternatives--but from what I've read so far, I don't think that is the case here.

About alternatives: what is happening on the Kemano and Revelstoke systems?

Edit

There appears to be a fair amount of unused capacity right there already built. If this is in fact the case, how about completing these first?

I lost my train of thought a above... on dams being [not] a bad thing, I mean to say I'm actually in favour of hydroelectric power, but I think large 'mega' dam projects like many other types of mega projects, are too destructive and we'd be better off with more, smaller (run of river?) dams. I'm leave in a couple weeks to visit Shanghai, so can't help thinking about the impact of the Three Gorges project to that country and the Yangzhee River.

This is weird coming from me, because I'm awestruck and inspired by the mammoth structures and projects of the recent past.

Lezard: I highly doubt that BC will ever completely use up all it's possible green resources. I mean there are MANY types of power possibilities within BC. I mean 90% of the total energy output for BC is produced from green resources. And many of the green resources in the province have not even begun to be worked on. We have an entire coastline where we could build wave farms and tidal plants, both of which are already being used somewhere in the world. There are current plans to build massive wind farms either offshore or onshore that will produce gigawatts of electricity. Just two of the planned wind farms, when added together, will produce over 700MW of electricity alone.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business...182/story.html

http://www.globaltvbc.com/technology...622/story.html

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...1-45c7f9005647

We also have the geothermal possibilities of Harrison Hotsprings and other active areas.

I don't think people down here realize how unique the peace river land and area is compared to the rest of BC its more prarie than any other part of BC and great farming land

How do you spell L-E-G-A-C-Y?

GC wants his name on something that will outlive him.

I'd say thats a pretty moot point. What else is there, the Olympics? The Canada Line? Gateway? There's a lot of big projects of his that are going to be notable for a long while.

<Shrug> and much of the Fraser River Delta is even better farming land and its built over.

If the world is becoming more globalized we need to accept the fact we are uniquely blessed to be able to provide lots of hydroelectic power, without too much damage to the environment. Rivers are blocked and dammed all the time in nature. Few people complain that we've stopped the Fraser from finding its own natural pathways through the delta.

I was arguing ad absurdam. But you are right.

Site C is not the only alternative left to BC; there are many alternatives that the Province should be looking into to add capacity. None of the alternatives mentioned on this board by you and others involves nuclear or coal generating.

First, BC should be pushing energy conservation with much more vigor. Reduce the amount of energy we waste before making even more available. Lots of available capacity there. Turn off your plasma screens and computers, don't just go on standby. Some reports state approx. 10% of household energy consumption goes to unused appliances on standby! Air conditioners? Vancouver is on the 49th parallel for crying out loud, not the equator. Open a window, take off your tie.

Second, upgrade existing facilities to raise their production capacity. Make what we already have as efficient as possible. I have heard there is a large part of what Site C will produce going unused in Revelstoke and Kitimat. How much capacity goes to waste in existing facilities in the Province; does anyone know? Does Gordo know?

Third, integrate alternative sources into the grid to add incremental capacity. Include sources that could be converted and stored in existing hydro and water reservoirs. Include wave and wind generation offshore. Methane digesters for animal and human waste. Solar on rooftops. Small windfarms on Downtown Skyscrapers. Hook up the gyms for heaven's sake. etc...

Once all that is done, then you start adding new massive projects to accommodate new demand. Only then can someone tell me, my opposition to a dam means there is no other alternative than to build a nuclear power plant.

:brickwall: :brickwall:

Pretty much none of these options make operational or economic sense.

With your first point, we can already dictate where our capacity goes. You can turn a hydro dam on or off with the flick of a switch and keep that potential energy from the water waiting until you want to sell it to someone. Thats why hydro dams are awesome, and how BC hydro makes so much money off the Americans.

Even if we build more capacity into our dams its all dependent on the amount of water entering the reservoir. We largely can't dictate how much power is generated beyond the amount which goes out the floodgates during times of peak runoff. We just get to pick the point in time when we want to generate that amount of electricity. I'd imagine the engineers at hydro probably optimized the amount power we can draw out of a given dam.

In your second point, small windfarms are expensive and provide tiny amounts of power when Vancouver actually has wind, solar in our climate is relatively expensive and still inefficient. With either of these points they don't add meaningful capacity and are likely never to pay off their capital cost during the entire operating life of the equipment. Effectively it would just be burning money.

These alternatives are great until real world things like scalability and money come into play. Conservation on the other hand is a great strategy, but it probably won't be able to fight the tides things like an increasing number of computers or the advent of electric cars. It's really not hard to imagine per capita electricity consumption going up a lot in a couple decades even if society wants to greenwash itself.

As a side note: I wouldn't say your guys argument was particularly childish, but both of you are being pretty reactionary. You should really step up your arguments if you want to be taken seriously.

Well, its about to become a great fishing destination! :tup:

That said, I'm all for nuclear energy. I suppose BCHydro would have to change its name to something else then though.

How do you know they don't make sense? It's your opinion, just as it's my opinion that they do.

To your second paragraph: wrong, that wasn't my first point. I don't know what you are arguing against there. That's all Site C is for? To gouge California?

To your third paragraph: of course a dam's capacity is dependent on the reservoir level. But that is exactly my point. We can influence reservoir levels by pumping water back up to store it again. Windfarms are ideally suited to provide the energy necessary.

To your fourth paragraph: Windfarms do make their capital costs back when applied intelligently. And they do provide significant amounts of capacity. In the EU, windfarms of all types contribute to about 4% of total generating capacity. And they are pushing for even more of them, the fools. Do they know nothing of scalability and money?

Conservation can provide significant amounts of spare capacity. Whether it will be enough to compensate for rising demand is open to debate. But combined with all the other options that have proposed on this board, it may very well suffice and maybe even allow us to rip California off again and again. Conservation measures would have to apply to new demand. Reducing how many computers we use, reducing individual transit in favour of mass transit. Giving up poptarts. Etc...

I don't care if you take me seriously, I do care that you read what I write if you're going to rip me a new one. In any event, my voicing opposition to Site C has made it impossible for Gordo's fellow travelers on here to take me seriously. I believe in Unicorns, don't you know.