Editor,
The pungent stench of this well-orchestrated, yet flawed attempt to extract money from unwary Ontarians, becomes more putrid with each article and opinion I read.
Who, with authority over this matter, if not for some form of extended remuneration, would advocate for the capitalization of this antiquated technology, and mandate its uncontestable utilization for 50 or 100 years to a sequestered market. The answer resides in the sanctum of criminality which requires exposure and termination.
It is at this juncture my talent/experience as an engineer is inadequate to address the task at hand. Individuals with litigation skills need to be engaged to unravel the web of deception and disrespectful contempt TCE and its advocates are attempting to obscure as they march forward with this absurd project. There must be some form of Stop Measure that can be publicly implemented to arrest this proposal from further advancement? Another question for those who specialize in disseminating government corruption and collusion.
TCE’s tenacious insistence this project is “good” for the province’s energy management objectives with their inaccurate claims of a ‘Green Initiative’ reminds me of a statement made in a St. John’s bar a few years ago, by the then Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Katherine McKenna … “If you say the same story over and over and over again, the public will eventually believe it, whether it be accurate or not”, she claimed. This is TCE’s ‘MO’ here. Their persistent promotion and now, proposed radio time/Zoom presentations are all a part of this propaganda.
TCE encourages inquiry on matters of the effects on Georgian Bay, the plights of local property owners, Indigenous matters, etc. because it takes the focus off of the long term monopoly they are attempting to create for acquisition of public resources. This must be the focus, moving forward, of those of us who know what this project is actually about. Just remember, this project has nothing to do at all with managing surplus energy for Ontario. As I (and many others) have pointed out, there are far more efficient and less costly/invasive technologies available today (and far more tomorrow) to store off-peak electrical energy.
Again, more thought must be given to engage the services of a legal team to expose this corruption and those in government who support it.
S. Carr, Meaford
