No Strings Attached : Laila Yuile on politics and life in B.C.

webcache.googleusercontent.com /search
I was in the courtroom the day that BC Hydro was granted their injunction to force the land stewards camp at historic
Rocky Mountain Fort. As I listened to the justice give his preamble and reasons for granting it,one knew what the
result was going to be. He listed what he could and could not consider within the confines of the law for the purposes
of the application, and even acknowledged there were many compelling and persuasive arguments the construction
of the dam should not proceed at this time.
That statement surprised me as it did others and was akin to rubbing salt on a raw wound, because like the land
stewards of Rocky Mountain Fort, I too believe construction of the dam must be halted.
The campers honoured the law and removed their camp. And within days BC Hydro was clearing. This is the before
image of the stunning Peace River valley that held Rocky Mountain Fort, a site that was selected by explorer
Alexander McKenzie in 1793 for the abundance of the area and traditional lands of Treaty 8 First Nations. *click to
see a larger version

Incredible,isnt it? Rich in wildlife, of traditional medicine and sacred land enjoyed and used by First
Nations,explorers and settlers for hundreds of years.
Until now. This is the view of Rocky Mountain Fort, after the injunction.

And here is a closer look at the devastating clearing that when viewed for the first time, brought tears. A local
ongoing art project in Surrey called I Grieve came instantly to mind : I grieve over the loss of these trees and this
land and what that loss will be for generations to come if one of the court cases doesnt stop it.

So much for treaty rights.

So much for history.
So much for peoples lives.
But ironically,when the injunction was served, no one told the eagles that no one was allowed to get in the way of
clearing

It is thought that this is the same bald eagle pair whose nest was destroyed last fall in clearing that was decried by
locals at that time,because an eagle was photographed at the nest right before it was taken down.
Arlene Boon, a third generation resident of the Peace Valley who along with her husband Ken stand to lose
everything they have worked their entire lives for, was among those camping at Rocky Mountain Fort site.In a
moment of levity, she posted this after hearing of the eagles nest:

1/24

That Arlene can speak with grace and humour in a situation that is anything but funny, speaks to the strength and
quality of her character.
That the bald eagles have chosen to build in the path of clearing for site C, some might say is divine intervention.
Across cultures and faiths, eagles hold significant spiritual significance, particularly for First Nations and Native
Americans.
BC Hydro has committed to a 300 meter buffer for all active nests during Site C construction so this nest is safe
according to their link. And, this site is now documented and actively being watched so it doesnt fall down due to
the backwatering caused by the channelization and diversion of the river as per the BC Hydro link embedded
above.
As for the pair of eagles? They may very well be considered the John and Jane Doe named in the BC Hydro civil suit
and the injunction application, so if you can spare some cash for the legal fees associated with fighting this damn
dam, it would be appreciated :)
https://www.gofundme.com/s6c4s4vs

** Part two of the WAC Bennett dam story will be posted next week,after Spring Break when many are gone for
holidays in BC. To refresh your memory,check out part one here: http://lailayuile.com/2016/03/10/bc-hydroresponses-to-bc-utilities-commission-raises-new-questions-over-wac-bennett-dam-repairs/
Or many of the other items Ive written on Site C here: http://lailayuile.com/the-case-to-stop-site-c-construction-linksnews/

Shared with permission, with the residents of British Columbia.

Ms. Carole Taylor

Financial Advisor to Premier of BC
C/O Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4
Dear Ms.Taylor:
Congratulations on your recent appointment. I can only hope that your deliberations and conclusions

2/24

are open and transparent to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

This is an appeal to you on behalf of
the ratepayers of our public utility BC Hydro and Power Authority [BCHPA] to investigate and better
understand the negative impacts and onerous financial commitment of the unnecessary proposed
Site C in the sedimentary basin of the Peace River.
At the very least, this project must be reviewed by an independent BC Utilities Commission and at the
most by a Royal Commission.
1.
Escalating Debt load on the backs of BCHydro Power Authority rate payers. The total BCHPA
debt in 2003 was $30 Billion, while in 2013 BCHydro CEO Charles Reid admitted an accumulated
debt obligation of $70 Billion. (See Newspaper for details)
2.
Escalating cost of construction of proposed Site C . Current cost estimate is $9 Billion. We know that
the WAC Bennett Dam doubled in cost in a 6 year time frame. This means potentially another $16
Billion to $18 Billion added to the existing $70 Billion Debt. Note that there has been no business plan
in place to retire this accumulating rate payer burden.
3.
There were 7 purposes provided for the use for proposed Site C beginning in 2010 with
export to California to energizing 450,000 homes in BC, ending with export to California (on the last
day of the Hearing).
This demonstrates no purpose for proposed Site C.
4.
Provincial Credit Rating is deteriorating and will likely be downgraded. It is noted that the
base debt of BC is $65 Billion compared to Albertas $16 Billion. Total Citizen Debt Commitment is
estimated at $181 Billion. Compare our failed Provincial Resource Development Policies with Norway
who is parallel in population, geography, and resources now has a wealth pool of $700+Billion,
second only to Dubai! The question is: Why can we not do as good as or better than Norway?
5.
Much more affordable alternates: The Shepherd co-generative gas plant on 60 acres in Calgary is
equivalent to proposed Site C. It has been constructed on budget for $1.3 Billion and has a
guaranteed 5 year rate of .08/Kw hour. This is a fraction of the cost of proposed Site C. The current
contract of $1.75 Billion would have built a co-gen plant using our stranded resource (natural gas)
adjacent to the load. This only makes good business sense.
6.
Existing infrastructure: The Burrard Thermal Plant at Port Moody is paid for, has been
upgraded and is capable of energizing 700,000 homes at the flick of a switch and it is next to the main
load. The policy to dismantle a facility equal to Site C needs to be reversed.
7.

Safety Uncertainty

The uncertainties in predicting both the extent and rate of the shoreline impacts lead to the proposal
to adopt an observational approach for periodically reviewing and updating the reservoir impact lines
after the reservoir has been filled. Statement in the September 2009 Klohn Crippen Berger and SNC
Lavelin report produced for BC Hydro.
2

3/24

2
This is supported by the report made by the Geological Survey Branch of British Columbia prepared
for the Honorable Jack Weisgerber, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in 1991.
(Quaternary Geology and Landforms of Eastern Peace River Region, British Columbia , by N.R. Catto
1991) Other cautionary examples such as the Mount Polley Disaster, Teton Dam Failure and the
Vajont Dam Collapse demonstrate that clay sedimentary basins are the absolute worst places to
construct dam reservoirs.
8.
Cost escalations caused by missed expenses
: i.e. PST costs were missed by estimates, TOTAL costs rose from $ 7.9 Billion to $9 Billion in one
month. Are there others?? How about the mounting disparity of Canadian Dollars versus American
Dollars?
9.
Most importantly, BCHPA DOES NOT have a social licence to interact with the Peace Region
.
This glaring corporate deficiency continues after 57 years of impact on the Valley growth and two
major hydro-electric dams. For example the District of Hudsons Hope has a decreasing population.
[1400 in 1978, 970 in 2014] The community revenues should be $25 Million for industrial taxes,
instead an arbitrary $1.2 M goes to the community coffers.
This list goes on: the loss of First Nations (FN) historical sites, the Rocky Mountain Fort (1794) and
Rocky Mountain Portage Fort (1806).
10.
Where is the $400 Million Peace Basin Trust Fund?
There is an existing Columbia Basin Trust recognizing past impacts. Why not one for the Peace?
11.
Former BCHPA CEO Reid, at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in June 2013, stated that the $1/2
Billion dividend BCHPA pays to the Provincial Budget is borrowed money!!!
As a business man this tells me that our public utility is Bankrupt!
12. Demand for electricity has flat-lined at 53-56,000 Gwhr. since 2008. North America is awash in
electrical energy. BCHPA forecasters have consistently got it wrong.

As a business Leader who understands that the bottom line is essential to running a successful
business, how would you rate your public utility with the financial facts authored in this letter?
The retirement of the existing $70 Billion debt load is not addressed. The huge debt burden will be on
the backs of all British Columbians forever.

4/24

DEBT IS NOT O.K. Expect exponential rises in consumer electrical rates!

The litany of poor economic performance and failed energy policies can lead one to speculate there
must be a hidden agenda for forcing proposed C on the backs of British Columbians!!!
Could it be a future sale of our Public Utilitys assets to General Electric, as was proposed in 2005 but
was rejected due to immediate public back-lash?
Site C would become BCs economic and environmental disaster of this Century.
To quote Harry Swain, Chairman of the Joint Review Panel:
the Provinces failure to investigate alternatives to the dam was a dereliction of duty.
We as householders and ratepayers DEMAND a sober review by the BC Utilities Commission of the
unnecessary proposed Site C Dam.

Arthur A Hadland, P.Ag, AACI(retired)

Citizen of the Peace,
Past Peace River Regional District Area C Director
Agrologist of the Year 2001
Food producer and Land Use Consultant

cc Auditor General, Moodys

And you might want to read a bit of background on another one of the Site C consortium members, courtesy of
Integrity BC:

BC Hydro selected Korean-based Samsung C&T, Madrid-based Acciona Infrastructure and Calgarybased Petrowest for the $1.75 billion Site C main civil works contract.
Samsung C&T was banned last year by Koreas Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) from participating in
any government tenders in Korea as a result of alleged bid-rigging.

Read the rest in the embedded link above that gem. Can you imagine the questions the BC Utilities Commission
might have been asking about contract prices ??! Tsk Tsk.

5/24

( More to come on Hydro this week,but today,recent events & conversation prompts this)

Earlier this year I had an admittedly uncomfortable conversation online with a long time Surrey advocate who would
send me every link to every news story about every shooting or violence in the city, particularly in Newton. As
someone whos lived in Surrey and written extensively about how this violence impacts life in the city, I knew without
it being said that the expectation was there that I would blog about it but I asked them directly why,if they were so
concerned, they were saying nothing themselves?
The answer was understandable-managing work,personal life and duties as a block watch participant etc.- things we
all balance in life but what it came down to is that she is often ignored,even though her words come with direct
experience and stats to back it up.
Whats troubling is that she wasnt the only person Ive had this same conversation with recently. Another long time
and highly respected resident messaged me after the recent shooting in Newton,the latest after a series in recent
weeks thats causing a lot of angst among residents who fear a repeat of 2015. She was very upset, it hit very close
to home for her,in an area with many young families.
I understood her concern, we all share it after more than 56 shootings in 2015,in addition to a large number of
reports of shots fired where casings or holes couldnt be found. Shootings that became increasingly brazen,occurring
in mid-day in family neighbourhoods, hitting houses and cars and schools and in one case, terrifying a child who
grabbed her playmates and took them to safety.
But I told her quite honestly, I didnt know what to do in the face of so much silence again. I asked why and her
response: Because you get harassed for talking.
I get that city officials want to change the media narrative and showcase whats great in the city,but changing that

6/24

narrative is only going to happen when the violence itself, stops.Not talking about the issues,doesnt solve them.
Asking or pressuring people socially to be quiet about it, doesnt either. We are the good and the bad and its ok to
acknowledge both and we must.
So here I am. Because there are so many amazing people at the grassroots level in this city, working hard to make
changes happen in their communities, whose good and hard work is often overshadowed by this kind of violence.
They are working hard to build a sense of community and get people out of their homes and get engaged and
develop community pride. They are promoting local business and starting art galleries and planting new public good
gardens. And they arent letting the violence stop thembut there is an underlying concern always of where those
bullets are going to end up and why it seems to be unstoppable.
Surrey leaders reacted to last years ongoing gun violence by bringing in a new director of public safety. More
meetings, more committees,more working groups. This report presented to the Public Safety Committee shows the
framework for the cities new strategy, which by their timeline, is to be launched October 2016.
View this document on Scribd
(I cant help but wonder what the result would have been if the city committed to lobby the provincial and federal
governments for extensive social supports for our youth and vulnerable citizens, with as much dedication as they
have committed to LRT in our cityhttps://www.biv.com/article/2016/2/surrey-hires-liberal-lobbyists-push-federalinfras/)
Reports in the media indicate that most of the 100 new officers promised have been brought in, but concerns were
voiced by sources as early as January that the number of general duty officers in each district,per shift hasnt
significantly changed, which impacts response times. Nor has there been any comment on the number of officers
lost due to attrition, that will offset the new officers that have come in.
Gun violence in this city is not new and as the cities expansion continues without the desperately needed social
infrastructure to go along with it keeping pace,one is left to contemplate the results. Who is responsible? City leaders
yes,but also every resident in the city. When you get engaged and hold city,provincial and federal politicians
accountable, they are forced to act.
A friend of mine reminded me of what happened during Quebecs biker wars in the 90s. As long as the bullets were
flying between gang members only,not a lot was done. But when an 11 year old boy was hit by flying shrapnel after
a car bomb exploded beside him on his way to the pool on a hot summer day and died days later, residents were
finally spurred to action.
In Surrey, we are so much more than the sum of our parts and growing painsbut unless residents realize it is no
longer enough to shake their heads and make concerned grimaces at the news, the cycle will continue.
That, I can guarantee.

7/24

*** The next Public Safety Committee meeting is Monday April 11th at 11:30 am . I strongly urge residents
interested in whats going on, attend if they can. It would nice if the city held these important committee meetings in
the evening like council meetings, so residents who work, can attend.
Also some more great work being planned by more amazing people. please get involved if you live in the area!

8/24

After sitting through both Hydros lawyers presentations and the judges reasons for granting the injunction to remove
the Rocky Mountain Fort land stewards and hearing Justice Butler comment on the many persuasive arguments
Site C should not proceed at this time I decided I needed to research more into Hydros other activities in the
area-this is why the 2011 government review of Hydro was a pertinent place to start.
It sets the tone for a crown corporation that has long operated in a silo where traditional procurement methods used
elsewhere were not consistently used,rationales not always questioned and mounting debt of deferral accounts and
loans taken to pay the BC governments dividend have the very real potential to impact the provinces credit rating.
Keep in mind that in that 2011 review, government ordered BC Hydro to find millions in savings over three years.
And they did. Which is what makes BC Hydros responses to the BC Utilities Commissions questions in the ongoing
hearings regarding the rip-rap repairs at WAC Bennett dam all that more compelling. Im wondering where all those
savings were found.
In November 2015, I wrote of the blatant hypocrisy of government that a multi-billion dollar Site C project was
exempted from BC Utilities Commission, yet repairs to the WAC Bennett dam still went through the same process.
Less than two weeks later and well into the silly season of Christmas parties and shopping, Justine Hunter had an
excellent article in the Globe and Mail.

9/24

More than three years after BC Hydro was warned by engineering experts that the W.A.C. Bennett
Dam has a serious deficiency that should be fixed without delay, the Crown corporation has applied
to begin work that will not be complete before 2019.

View this document on Scribd

The WAC Bennett dam is classified as an extreme
consequence dam according to the downstream
consequences of any breach or incident. (pg 29) As a result of
the identified issued in 1998 ( think about that), BC Hydro
developed the Upstream Rip-Rap Emergency Plan:

In the event that riprap damage extending to or near

the crest of the Dam occurs, the ESRP calls for enddumping and bulldozing or placing rock from the top of
the Dam. (pg29)

On (pg 32), BCUC asks Hydro what the expected damage

would be from a 1/10,000 year storm event and Hydro
replies,noting such damage could happen with smaller storms
at high reservoir levels:

10/24

And more.
Pg 34 speaks to what limitations the emergency response plan of dumping rock would have on a storm,flood or
earthquake event.
Pgs 37 & 38 speak to the many other repairs, upgrades and investigations needed on the WAC Bennett dam alone.
On Pg 42, BCUC asks if the need to do these repairs now,since the damage was first noted in 1998, is the result of
more recent erosion, a change in risk, or some other change:

11/24

 Project sequencing, prioritization of resources and available funding.

Am I the only one that finds it odd that public safety doesnt appear in that reasoning?
Pgs 43- 48 detail Hydros response to questions on when emergency repairs would be implemented, and what the
result would be overall on the dam. The more I read, the more concerned I become -and for good reason.
Having seen what happened at Mount Polley and I am in no way suggesting that a catastrophic breach is going to
happen at WAC Bennett one has to question why critical repairs have been left for years. Even after a panel said
they needed to be done without delay so long they reached the point where an Emergency Rip-rap response plan
had to be developed in case something goes wrong.
It just doesnt make sense,even after speaking with people in the field. The engineering panel was very clear back
in 2012 that: It ( repairs to rip-rap & top of the dam) should not be delayed. If an earthquake were to happen
before the upstream slope and the top of the dam are repaired, serious damage may occur.
And as we know now, at least two earthquakes felt in the area were the result of fracking operations.
Why would the province and BC Hydro prioritize pushing ahead with Site C, which is still facing several legal
challenges, ahead of critical repairs resulting from issues first identified in 1998 on a dam upstream? Repairing the
rip-rap,undercutting and top of the dam is now a several year job and involves a degree of risk at the point when old
rip-rap is removed, leaving the dam in a more vulnerable position than ever.
Why energy minister Bill Bennett, BC Hydro CEO Jessica Mcdonald and Premier Christy Clark arent on the hot seat
for this debacle, is beyond me. And according to a quarterly dam safety report from BC Hydro ( could not locate a
more recent one) there are a number of investigations,repairs and assessments occurring on Hydro dam
infrastructure around the province.
This is the latest Quarterly Dam Safety Report.
View this document on Scribd
The BC Hydro responses to the BC Utilities Commission demonstrate two important points that every BC resident
needs to pay close attention to.
First, the questions show the importance of the role the regulator plays in holding BC Hydro to account and to ensure
the best interests of the public ( ratepayers) is upheld. That the BCUC is questioning why these repairs are only
being done now, is part of why government has hobbled them so much.And they are questioning the contracting and
bid process as well as the costs. This examination is why the government exempted Site C from review- it would
never have been approved.

12/24

Second, The answers from BC Hydro should have residents of Hudsons Hope, Fort St. John and the surrounding
area, asking for explanations from their local MLA Mike Bernier, Enery minister Bill Bennett, BCHydro CEO Jessica
Mcdonald and the premier who vowed to get Site C past the point of no return.
When a public safety issue like this takes a back seat to a dam project the province no longer needs, somethings
gone terribly wrong If there was ever more reason to halt Site C and send it to the BCUC, this is it.
You can view the applications, process and evidence presented in this BCUC rip-rap repair hearing,
here: http://www.bcuc.com/Proceeding.aspx?ApplicationType=Current
Ill be back in a couple of days, with more. Because this isnt the only problem on the horizon

Volume 1 of the 2012 engineering report:

View this document on Scribd

Volume 2 of the 2012 engineering report:

View this document on Scribd

13/24

The news that BC Hydro would not release the amounts of the other bids for recent Site C contracts, is not surprising
at least not to me. Having written extensively on many of the biggest transportation projects in BC, accountability is
still sorely lacking in most ministries when it comes to opposing bid amounts.
When it comes to bids and contracts with BC Hydro however, transparency and accountability have long been two
features that are far and few between and it hasnt gone unnoticed.
BC Hydros near crippling debt is by far not the only concern BC residents should be paying attention to Norm
Farrell has been posting regularly on BC Hydro and continues to do excellent work on this file. But when it comes to
the most expensive infrastructure project this province has ever seen, there is no room for secrecy and every reason
to examine and question the process from beginning to end. With a premier well into desperation mode trying to get
a multi billion dollar dam built with seemingly no justification left to do so, if government wont ensure accountability,
others must.
In 2011 when BC Hydro applied for what amounted to a 32% increase over three years, government reacted with a
review in light of the impact that increase would have on ratepayers like you and I. And while there was a lot of fluff
and back patting in that report, it did give light to some disturbing aspects of how Hydro operates.
For example, the panel found that due to the regulatory environment and the corresponding corporate culture in BC
Hydro, being the best and the resulting desire to have the gold standard is not necessarily for lowest cost or
greatest value for money. (pg.2)
The panel also observed many examples of excessive planning, over engineering of 2 y Review of BC Hydro
projects and the use of multiple layers of contingencies and reserves in order to satisfy various stakeholders and
regulatory agencies. BC Hydros strong focus on service, safety and being the best are very good objectives,
however, they need to be pursued in the context of balancing need and costs. ( pg 2/3)
The panel also found that BC Hydro acknowledges that they over manage their capital projects to ensure quality
workmanship of contractors. BC Hydros approach to procurement and risk allocation has resulted in multiple
change orders for their projects of up to 114% of the original individual contract value and 13% of the total project
value. (pg 8/9

14/24

BC Hydro also needs to improve their contingency budgeting for capital projects and to consider the
reasonableness of their funding requests when identifying strategies to mitigate risks. An insufficient
focus on costs creates an incentive to build excessive contingencies on project budgets which allows
for poor cost containment in their risk oversight. For example, BC Hydro encountered a large number
of change orders on some capital projects. Specifically, BC Hydro encountered several large design
revisions during the construction period of the Aberfeldie Redevelopment Design Bid Build project at
a cost of $12M for additional general contractor, engineering and mechanical fees (26% of the original
contract values). The high number of change orders noted on files is an indicator of ineffective risk
allocation. ( pg 36)
~snip~
BC Hydro operates within business group silos. This business model increases the risk of
inconsistent practices which would, if realized, impact negatively on transparency and vendor
relationships. 60 y Review of BC Hydro BC Hydros standard procurement templates and policy
guidance documents have recently been updated to support improved alignment with government
procurement principles; however, these policy changes have not been adopted consistently across
the organization.
For example, within the different business groups, there are inconsistent competitive bid disclosures.
Some business groups disclose weighted evaluation criteria while others only disclose the ranking of
the evaluation criterion. The result of these variable practices is inconsistent transparency within the
organization which has negative impacts on BC Hydros supplier relationships. Adopting the best
practice of disclosing the weight of each evaluation criteria outlined within competitive bid documents
will increase transparency to both the supplier community and the general public.
~snip~
In the project files, the risks and general mitigation strategies were identified in a risk register;
however, the register did not adequately identify which party was assuming the risk or the associated
costs. Therefore, BC Hydro could not demonstrate whether they were receiving good value for money
and they could not demonstrate an informed understanding of risk or effective risk management

And on. And more. Excessive expenditures,lack of accountability,etc. etc. BC Hydro has made some changes since
and states they have found substantial savings. But even those statements are more than a little misleading when
looking at the bigger picture and their financial statements. Its even more compelling that while the BC government
ordered Hydro to find savings, and speak to the BC Utilities Commission as being the oversight tool to ensure Hydro
is on track with rates etc, government did not see fit to stop taking a dividend entirely even though BC Hydro is
seriously in debt and often forced to borrow to pay that dividend government takes every year. ( no money to be
found to pay that dividend to the BC government again this year, as Norm pointed out recently in this post)
Nor did the government consider the impact forging ahead without BCUC oversight on Site C, would have on rates.
Lets not forget that BC Hydro CEO Jessica McDonald recently had to apologize for Hydros misleading statements
to the BC Utilities Commission ,statements others simply referred to as lies. And now, with billions of dollars on the
line, questions are being raised on the Site C contracts and BC Hydro doesnt care to show taxpayers the other bids.
Its time now, more than ever, for examination into everything associated with Site C, and thats what Ive been doing
for the last week. But for every bit of research Ive done and the few answers Ive found, the number of questions is
only growing. Its my opinion BC Hydro needs to be brought back into government as a ministry and full inquiry type
of reveal be done. Because some of what is going on, just doesnt even make sense. And I cant help wonder if

15/24

whats going on is contributing to Bill Bennetts short temper, becoming even shorter.
That and more, next week. But for now, review this for some historical context.
View this document on Scribd

**UPDATED BELOW
Heres a little something interesting to gnaw on while Im working this other story.
In November 2015, the BC Government and BC Hydro
awarded a $1.5 Billion contract to the Peace River Hydro
Partners, of which Petrowest Corporation is
included. http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/regionalnews/site-c/1-5-billion-site-c-civil-works-contract-awarded-topeace-river-hydro-partners-1.2119419
Yet curiously by December 2015 just a month after this Site
C contract was awarded the Financial Post was reporting
that Petrowest was operating on borrowed time from its

lenders: http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/petrowest-corp-is-operating-on-borrowed-time-from-itslenders-as-ebitda-cut-in-half?__lsa=42f4-b32f

CALGARY Petrowest Corp. is operating on borrowed time from its lenders.

16/24

The oilfield and forestry services company says it has

until Jan. 18 to provide a 2016 budget to get
temporary relief from some of its debt commitments.
Most of the commitments relate to Petrowests
adjusted EBITDA, a measure of earnings that has
fallen dramatically.
As of Sept. 30, the Calgary-based company had
generated $10.62 million of adjusted EBITDA for the
first nine months of 2015, down from $27.6 million in
the comparable period of 2014.
One of Petrowests covenants is to maintain a
minimum of $20.7 million adjusted EBITDA for four
consecutive quarters.
Petrowests lenders have granted waivers on its debt
covenants until Feb. 29, subject to the budget
condition.

Yesterday, Stockhouse reported that lenders have now extended the debt waiver to March 31st, giving Petrowest
some breathing room while they work with lenders: http://www.stockhouse.com/news/pressreleases/2016/03/01/petrowest-provides-update-on-credit-facilities
Which begs the question: What kind of due diligence does the BC Government and BC Hydro perform when it
comes to potential bidders? Because for me, a company that has lenders making noise would be a big red flag

This out today from BIV: https://www.biv.com/article/2016/3/bc-government-withholds-competing-bids-site-c-cont/

One email from BC Hydro CEO Jessica McDonald on November 16, 2015, suggests there was a bit
of a rush to finalize and announce the awarding of the contract.
There is a very tight timeframe for an announcement of this award, McDonald writes in an email.
That urgency is not explained as the following sentences are redacted.

Question: Would the above situation regarding Petrowest, have been a mitigating factor in the rush to award and
finalize this contract? Because a contract in the hand certainly soothes lenders.
and sometimes it involves lengthy research,copious amounts of coffee and finding ways to circumvent the brick
walls you encounter along the way. Working on a BC Hydro story. Be back soon.

Tonight this politically charged gem comes to you from Gerry Hummel of Kitimat BC. He just whipped up this little
cartoon about the BC governments LNG debacle and sent it on over I think youll find it bang on. :)

17/24

18/24

Like Gerrys work? Contact Gerry at : ghummel@telus.net for commissions of caricatures,cartoons, or just to tell him
how talented he is :)
( and if you havent, head back to the home page,scroll down and read about some interesting points made in BC
Hydros statements to the court Monday)
Forgive my late report on Monday mornings interesting points
from BC Hydros lawyers in Supreme Court. After picking up a
very sick youngster on the way home, I was hit like a ton of
bricks Monday night by the same flu.Yesterday was spent on the
couch and right now Im dosed up on Advil while the fever is low
to get this done.
The large amount of media attention given to David Suzuki &
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip,did not carry over into the courtroom
to hear BC Hydros statements in court. Not surprisingly, Site C
job fairs organized by BC Hydro for the same day garnered far
more press than what happened inside that court room job fairs that received criticism because they were nothing
more than a resume drop off,with no actual hiring or interviews. There is little to no active hiring going on for work
underway currently.

Held in courtroom 52 -a relatively small location that did not allow for the number of people interested in following the
proceedings it was standing room only at the door when I arrived.Much of what was presented was not news if
you have read the notice of claim or affidavits in the case. BC Hydro wants an injunction to remove the defendants
and the camp from the Rocky Mountain Fort heritage site, one of the oldest fort sites in British Columbia even
older than the historic Fort Langley National Historic site here in Metro Vancouver.
But I digress. Hydro wants the peaceful group of Treaty 8 members and local land owners off the site so they can

19/24

continue clearing. And in amidst the show inherent to courtroom presentations Andrews often pauses for dramatic
effect,letting either his last words hang in the air for impact, or building tension for those to come there were some
very interesting points I want to share with you
The land stewards & First Nations at Rocky Mountain Fort camp are preventing BC Hydros archaeological
experts ( from Golder I believe) from coming in and digging
BC Hydro wants to commence clearing of the site where Rocky Mountain Fort camp is located,as they must
have it cleared of trees before bird nesting season begins, to save the birds. ( no work can occur during bird
nesting season)
The site where the land stewards camp is, has been identified by BC Hydro, as the only location where
potentially acid-generating waste rock must be dumped, and when covered by water will make good fish
habitat. (??)
That BC Hydro does actually have a work-around solution for this and has identified an alternative site to
dump the rock,but doesnt wish to do so because of the costs involved.
BC Hydro acknowledges a point of contention are the changing justifications for the project as can and often
does happen (paraphrased)
BC Hydro made a point of mentioning that the Clean Energy Act allows Site C to be built & that the project is
in line with the portion of the act that states BC is to be a net exporter of electricity from clean or renewable
resources with the intention of benefiting all British Columbians ( Part 1, #2 -n, here:
( http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_10022_01#section10 )
As Andrews made mention time and time again of all the contentious issues facing this project and why this
courtroom was not the place for discussing or considering them,it struck both myself and others who attended, that
he specifically addressed an issue that I have raised several times on social media BC Hydros prior claims in
Supreme court,that have been negated by Premier Clark and Energy Minister Bill Bennett:
( https://storify.com/lailayuile/site-c-is-not-in-the-best-interests-of-british-col)
I again, blogged about that issue early Monday morning before court. These prior claims in court largely evaded
public scrutiny since it happened during the height of deep summer last August,when anything but court cases are
on most peoples minds. ( http://lailayuile.com/2016/02/22/will-bc-hydro-still-argue-that-the-energy-from-site-c-willflow-to-british-columbians/ )
I remembered, because I wrote about how ridiculous their claims in court were last
summer: http://lailayuile.com/2015/08/20/bc-hydro-says-halting-site-c-would-cost-taxpayers-500-million-not-buildingit-at-all-will-save-us-over-8-billion-dollars/
Another point that received reaction from those in attendance, was point 2 above in regards to potentially acid
generating/leaching rock making good fish habitat. Im certainly no scientist,but there is a lot of scientific publications
on that issue that are contradictory to that. It seemed as if Hydro were grasping at straws Monday, in trying to find
reasons to remove the campers, having already acknowledged there was a work around, and that there are still
more court cases that have not been ruled on- any which of could stop this project immediately.
The morning hearing ended and court did not resume Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning because the judge
wasnt feeling well. It resumed for two hours yesterday afternoon and continues today with the defense team
representing the land stewards. Despite the loss of one afternoon and one morning, I am told the judge made it
known he would like to give his ruling Thursday. To me, this seems rushed.
The Rocky Mountain Fort Land stewards have a very strong response to the injunction application, in my opinion.
Their expert affidavits are on point as are their reasons for being on site. You can read that response
here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/299710142/Defendant-response-to-BC-Hydro-Site-C-injunction

20/24

Since the notice of eviction was given to the land stewards under cover of New Years Eve
( http://lailayuile.com/2016/01/02/bc-hydro-issues-rocky-mountain-fort-campers-at-site-c-a-24-hour-eviction-noticeon-new-years-eve/) , Ive written often and profusely about this saga.
I feel strongly that the province of British Columbia has been negligent in exempting Site C from independent review
of the BC Utilities Commission, the regulatory agency created to do so. Both the premier and duly elected Liberal
MLAs have failed in their inherent duty to act in the best interests of British Columbians on this project.
In addition,by commencing preliminary site preparation despite several outstanding lawsuits by local First Nations
against Site C, the province has failed in its duty to consult and honour Treaty 8 and demonstrated a complete lack
of regard for due process.
Im reminded of a passage from a piece done early on by Daphne Bramham today, one that speaks to whats
happened here:

First Nations people, local landowners and environmentalists pitted against private and public
corporations in disputes over the use/misuse of public lands.
There ought to be a better way than this.
And there is. Its supposed to be due process and the rule of law.
Yet when governments dont wait for those processes to fully play out or when they rewrite the rules
to their own advantage against the perceived public interest, its hard to condemn peaceful protests of
frustrated citizens as long as they remain peaceful.

Spent the morning listening in on opening statements from BC Hydros lawyer at Supreme Court and will post a bit
on that later. But I ran into a friend in government on the skytrain home who told me Gordon Wilsons appointment to
LNG advocate, had once again, been renewed by the Clark government:

21/24

And what you might want to notice is that they have appointed him until get this 2018!!!
I guess that ensures he has a job regardless of whether the Liberals win or lose the next election, but since Judi
Tyabji is writing Clarks bio, that works quite well for them both,doesnt it?
Considering oil and gas revenues are dropping faster then flies in a hot tent and LNG is never going to be what Clark
promised, how does government justify this kind of position? LNG has become as Gordon Wilson once wrote- a
dead duck.
Shortly after he first received this position,Wilson made his blog private. However thanks to the wonders of the
internet, archived versions remain:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130521150603/http://gordonfdwilson.com/2013/04/23/a-golden-goose-or-a-deadduck/
***Click on each photo, which will open in a new link click on that photo for a full size version

22/24

So there you have it. While BC LNG does seem to be turning out to be a dead duck, Wilson surely found the Golden
Goose regardless..

23/24

Posts navigation

24/24