Dear Editor,
Recent activity on the Letters page makes me glad the amateurs are finally sidelined in favor of the professionals for the pumped storage discussions.
Consider this suggestion from last week’s Letters:
“As part of its responsibility to submit an Initial Project Description to the IAAC, the company (TCE) already had access to geological research prepared by Hunter and Associates of Mississauga, Ontario. That research should have provided enough understanding of the bedrock beneath Georgian Bay and throughout the proposed project area at this time.”
That’s that then. No need for more Bay drilling or performing actual geologic research. Right? The CEO of TCE can go to his Board seeking billions of dollars for this project and tell the Board that TCE decided to forgo the expense of actual geological research in favor of research obtained from Hunter and Associates of Mississauga.
And the TCE Board will go “Who?” Just before saying “You’re fired.”
I looked at the Hunter and Associates research submissions (5) available to all on the IAAC website. All of them are clearly marked. They’re either summaries of other people’s documents or an open internet search. Performed using Google’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) queries.
This research is mainly Internet search results. Done by AI. I saw no evidence of actual drilling results.
The IAAC Public Comments (source – IAAC), plus Community Readiness Study (Deloitte’s work) combination they provided was plenty for me. I objected to certain inconsistencies.
One obvious example involves the reservoir location:
“The project’s location on an active military base introduces unique risks. Ongoing heavy artillery fire and explosives training create ground vibrations that could destabilize the dam or accelerate bedrock fracturing. Stakeholders also note the risk of a direct ordnance hit or accidental detonation of unexploded ordnance (UXO).” (Page 11).
The stakeholders would prefer that the reservoir not take a direct hit from live fire during training.
Fair enough. I agree. That would be bad. I bet everyone agreed on that one.
I note, with considerable concern, that the Google AI query that Hunter and Associates used failed to note that the proposed location was moved specifically to eliminate that risk of a direct hit. To a location the big guns point away from. Not towards. To a spot where historically there has been no shelling. And therefore, little reason to fear UXOs.
That problem was fixed in 2019. You will not learn that from that Hunter and Associates’ review.
Their AI output missed that very critical point. Or? Ignored it? Why?
When you get to Page 22, you uncover this gem:
“…local stakeholders and engineering reviews have proposed other locations that they argue are technically and environmentally superior.”
The Hunter and Associates AI suggests the IAAC require consideration of alternative reservoir locations. Alternatives to the safest location – already agreed to – between DND and TCE – years ago.
How come? Because:
“Critics argue that the IPD (Initial Project Description) is deficient because it fails to meaningfully analyze these alternatives, particularly the Mountain Lake options, which offer significantly greater energy storage and lower risk to the civilian community.”
The Hunter document then clearly warns that the Mountain Lake location “encroaches on live fire ranges and UXO zones”. (This is a phrase I understand the military uses to mean “May go BOOM!”)
The Hunter and Associate’s AI actually recommends that the IAAC require consideration of requests to move the location of the reservoir to a spot that may receive live fire during military training. I am not joking.
This will make the stakeholders back on Page 11 very unhappy.
That would guarantee shell fragments and UXOs get into the reservoir, then into Georgian Bay. After blowing the reservoir up? What we all agreed we should avoid just 11 pages ago?
Surely “encroaches on live fire ranges and UXO zones” is a disqualifier? For a reservoir!?
I think TCE should stick to doing their own environmental research and rely on that. I’ll take millions of dollars of actual research over 20 pages of AI Internet search summary. Every time. As will the CEO and the Board of TCE.
This one also caught my attention:
“At the same time, a federal impact assessment has been triggered, raising questions about how potential risks — particularly to nearby drinking water sources — will be evaluated and addressed.”
I’m willing to wager money that potential risks—particularly to nearby drinking water sources—will be evaluated and addressed – through a federal impact assessment.
This last Letters contribution was a head scratcher.
With regard to the resumption of drilling to confirm feasibility and to assess whether modifications to the proposed design will be needed, there was this:
“TC Energy spokesperson Sara Beasley has described this testing as an important step in ensuring the project meets high environmental standards. If so, why is this work being emphasized now rather than after governmental approvals?”
I’m completing my 69th trip around the Sun. In all those years I have never heard one person suggest feasibility assessments need to happen AFTER project approval has happened. Until now.
What exactly would project approval be based on then? Magic beans readings and Ouija Board forecasting?
From the dictionary:
“An assessment is the systematic process of gathering, analyzing, and interpreting information to evaluate the condition, value, or progress of something. It is used to form a well-reasoned judgment, measure performance, or guide decision-making.”
It’s right in the dictionary definition, guys.
“Guide decision-making.”
Bruce Mason, Meaford
