By Chris Varcoe, Calgary Herald October 9, 2013

By Bill Mah, Edmonton Journal September 26, 2013

By Letter to the Editor on September 25, 2013.

Re: Dave Mabell article of Sept 14.

It is surprising to me that the Lethbridge Herald will publish such a large article based on unresearched and unbalanced marketing misinformation. In fact, the whole article was a regurgitation of last May’s press release of CanWEA. This is not news. I think that The Herald more likely published this text believing that it would serve the interest of the public. I also suspect that the CanWEA marketing machine has used The Herald to spread their marketing misinformation and to put pressure on our politicians to accommodate them via the granting of more subsidies.

The issue of producing reliable electrical power economically and environmentally acceptable is not a political one. It is a multi-layered topic that involves the combined expertise of engineers, techno-economists and environmental scientists. The question is why does CanWEA keep putting pressure on our politicians that have none of these qualifications or knowledge to evaluate their claims? Why do they try to influence the voters to endorse claims which are not factual? Yes, we have a long-term energy supply problem and the working of the Alberta market needs fixing, but wind technology, as it stands today and contrary to popular beliefs, does not present a solution that would be economical, sustainable or environmentally acceptable.

The Lethbridge Herald can maintain its good reputation by facilitating the true issues to surface in an impartial way. That can be achieved by sponsoring a public forum where CanWEA specialists will attempt to convince a panel of experts made up of engineers, economists and environmental scientists on the merit of their ideas and to validate their claims. I pledge to have such a panel available on time if needed, in order to have their credentials evaluated.

The problem is that CanWEA will never accept to subject its claims to scrutiny by experts because they don’t want the public to focus on their dirty little secrets. If The Herald at least attempts to sponsor such a forum, it will get an indication which can be used as a guideline for the future publications.

Cosmos Voutsinos, P.Eng.

Lethbridge

By Letter to the Editor on September 21, 2013.

Re: Alberta lagging in wind power generation, Sept. 14.

The CanWEA and Dave Mabell try hard to perpetuate the myth that wind electricity is good for Albertans and good for the environment. Wind is expensive and inefficient; it does little to reduce carbon dioxide emissions; and wind turbines kill thousands of bats and birds in Alberta annually.

In Alberta, electrical output from wind turbines is just 32 per cent of design capacity, rendering actual production facilities and new transmissions lines inefficient – lines that we pay for with every electricity bill. We have spent billions on wind generation in Alberta and yet wind produces only three per cent of our electrical needs.

But have carbon dioxide emissions been reduced by three per cent? Almost certainly not, because when the wind blows, gas and coal plants still operate. Wind is so unreliable that it can never replace gas and coal generation.

In 2010, the Minister of Energy established the Transmission Facilities Cost Monitoring Committee. In June 2012, the committee published its third report, Review of the Cost Status of Major Transmission Projects in Alberta, available here: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Electricity/pdfs/TFCMCcostJun2012Report.pdf.

The report states, “To accommodate wind generation in southern Alberta . . . The existing capacity of the transmission system in southern Alberta is insufficient to provide adequate system access for the interconnection of additional wind-powered generation . . . Current estimated cost is $2.82 billion.” This expense is between now and 2017. For what? Thoughtful Albertans know that we are lining the pockets of wind companies and land owners who allow these monsters on their property.

Wind generation kills birds and bats. In March 2013, the Alberta government reported about a large number of bats killed at the Summerview wind facility. “In response to reports of bat mortality, post-construction surveys were carried out . . . These surveys found 532 bat carcasses in 2005 and 611 in 2006, or an estimated 16 bat mortalities per turbine.”

Sixteen bats per turbine were killed! Where were Suzuki, the CBC, Mabell and viral You Tube videos decrying the slaughter?

Clive Schaupmeyer

Coaldale

THE CANADIAN PRESS September 4, 2013

VICTORIA — Federal Green party Leader Elizabeth May claims leaked documents show taxpayers are subsidizing the bid to build the proposed $6-billion Northern Gateway oil pipeline with about $120 million in government studies.

While Ottawa is cutting major science research projects across Canada, May says the documents reveal the federal government has embarked on at least two major initiatives that are “greasing the wheels” for Enbridge (TSX:ENB), the Calgary-based firm proposing the pipeline.

May says the Harper government is spending at least $78 million on marine spill studies specifically connected to bitumen, the molasses-like crude that will be shipped in the pipeline between Alberta and B.C.

She also says the documents reveal Ottawa is spending $42 million to study ways to improve weather forecasting in the coastal regions that will be used by oil tankers if the project is approved by the federal Joint Review Panel.

One of the conditions set out by the B.C. government for its approval of the pipeline was that oil spill response, prevention and recovery on the west coast needed to be world-class.

The federal government could not immediately be reached for a response to the documents, dated May 2012.

By The Canadian Press on September 19, 2013.

SUFFIELD, Alta. – The Alberta government has swooped down on an oil company to protect a nest of threatened hawks.

The province says it has ordered Calgary-based Crew Energy Inc. (TSX:CR) to stop operating an oil well near Suffield in southern Alberta.

The government says the well is too close to a nest of ferruginous hawks, which are protected under the federal Species At Risk Act.

The province says it has also cancelled the company’s mineral surface lease at the site.

Alberta law prohibits high-risk developments within 1,000 metres of active nests to protect the birds.

The company must also submit a plan to restore the well site to its original condition.

By Mabell, Dave on September 19, 2013.

Dave Mabell

LETHBRIDGE HERALD

[email protected]

Today, it’s home to antelope, elk, deer and waterfowl. Rancher Audrey Taylor says 700 head of cattle are grazing on the Milk River Ridge property as well.

But soon it could be carved up by oil exploration crews, she fears, destroying some of southern Alberta’s best fescue grasslands and ruining the wildlife habitat.

And the provincial government is doing nothing about it, Taylor says, despite alarms raised by ecologists and the Southern Alberta Environmental Group.

“We think it’s worth protecting,” but Taylor says provincial officials refuse to add the endangered land to the adjacent Twin River Heritage Rangeland, under provisions of the province’s protected areas legislation.

While they said oil exploration can continue, Taylor was told no further rangeland can be preserved until the South Saskatchewan River basin plan is completed and approved. That could be many months from now.

Taylor says her local MLA, Gary Bikman, got the same response when he raised her concerns with a Conservative cabinet member.

Her last hope, she says, is a delay while the new Alberta Energy Regulator decides whether it will grant a request to hold public hearings before allowing exploration. Otherwise, Taylor says her family’s land – on the ridge northwest of the town of Milk River – could soon be covered by drilling rigs as energy companies continue to probe the massive Bakken deposits.

“This wonderful prairie and wetland paradise is too fragile and precious to allow oil wells and roads to damage it,” she says.

For now, at least, Taylor says the rangeland is home to herds of elk, pronghorns and deer.

“They want to drill where the elk spend the whole winter,” she says. “And another spot, where they have their babies.”

For the first time in years, Taylor said, the ridge also became the summer home for a grizzly and her cubs.

Taylor and her husband – and now, four children – have been ranching in the area for years, she says.

“My mom and dad have been here 35 years,” and it’s a time-honoured Alberta lifestyle they hope to continue.

“We think it’s worth protecting.”

Grassland ecologist Cheryl Bradley, speaking for southern Alberta environmentalists, says the property has already been officially recognized as being “environmentally significant,” and it has “protective notations” citing its rare fescue grasslands.

If oil exploration proceeds, Bradley warns, the loss of grasslands will have “impacts on sensitive wildlife species, habitat fragmentation, and increased risk of spread of non-native plant species.”

By Medicine Hat News Opinon on September 13, 2013.

It’s hard to imagine a more intimidating environment, where government towers over the average person, than the hearing this week about AltaLink’s plan for power lines on Township Road 114.

With all the trappings of a court of law, one side of the “courtroom” was stacked with highly paid expert witnesses, AltaLink executives, their lawyer and his assistant to help him keep numerous six-inch files at the ready, all smartly dressed in tailored suits, facing banks of laptops and reference material.

On the other side of the “courtroom” were the landowners along Township Road 114 who had been living quiet and peaceful lives until AltaLink announced its route for power lines.

These ordinary men and woman had thrust upon them a hearing, scheduled to take up to a week, as their platform to try to defend their right to a quiet and healthy enjoyment of their property, including a view of the countryside without pylons. That country view is often the impetus for many choosing to travel the distance into town for work, school and shopping.

A couple of them did have a lawyer to represent them but most had taken time away from work, had researched the implications as best they could and presented that to the “court.”

With the odds stacked against them, the AltaLink lawyer, in summing up and rebuttal, almost sneered at their efforts suggesting they’d not bothered to obtain legal counsel and therefore had not done a very good job of making their case.

It’s true the Alberta Utilities Commission does make provision for helping with the cost of legal counsel but they don’t profess to “cover” it.

A spokesperson for the commission said the landowners would have to make an application for financial assistance and would then have to try to find a lawyer willing to work for what the commission agreed to pay. The other option is to pick up the remainder of the legal bill themselves.

Hardly a fair playing field compared to the resources a company such as AltaLink has at its disposal.

The cost of the hearing organized by the Alberta Utilities Commission was not available. A spokesperson said there is and was no budget for the host of people, estimated to be around 10, necessary to administer the hearings.

It is, of course, the taxpayer who pays the Alberta Utilities Commission’s bill and ultimately we all pay AltaLink’s bill too.

There is something terribly wrong with a system that foists on the average person the need to defend their right to continued enjoyment of their land and especially so when the odds appear horribly stacked against them.

If you think this has nothing to do with you because you don’t live on Township Road 114, think again, AltaLink’s next project may be coming to your neighbourhood.