Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Premier. The NWT Hydro Corporation’s strategic plan promises a feasibility analysis and design of a potential electrical grid for the Northwest Territories. The Taltson expansion does not address this or support a long-term strategy focused on the NWT grid system or creating redundancy within the NWT electrical system. You would think that this analysis and design of a grid should logically occur prior to the Taltson expansion itself. So could the Premier tell me how can this government support the expansion of Taltson if it avoids addressing this issue, which is one of the primary purposes that the NWT Hydro Corporation exists in the first place? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the NWT Hydro Strategy does set out the development of a grid over the long-term life of the Northwest Territories. This piece of our plan is based on the business case, a business model that sees revenue accruing to the partnership and to the Hydro Corporation. From there, the benefits then would flow in other areas, Mr. Speaker, that would see, for example, the GDP of the Government of the Northwest Territories remain or grow because we’re able to supply electrical power to industry at a lower rate than is being done, so now because they have to build their own electricity generation as part of their scenarios of mine development and, as well, burn diesel and also add to the climate change concerns that we have. Thank you.
I was wondering if the Premier could tell me what business opportunity he’s talking about. I was under the impression that the whole business case of the Taltson expansion was based on selling power to diamond mines, of which I understand that the diamond mines haven’t signed any power purchasing agreements or anything like that. So who are these business opportunities and these new mining ventures that exist? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have to realize and recall, even the previous decisions made by the mines because of the economic downturn was they shut down for a number of months because of the cost of running their operations, and that takes into fact the cost of running their facilities in a remote location. Our plan would provide for power at a cheaper rate, thereby expanding mine lives, for example, or allowing a new mine to be developed, because one of the things that the shareholders of a mining operation have to take into consideration is the overall cost of doing business in the Northwest Territories.
So as we look at those pieces, this process was put in place, Deze Corporation, a partnership that we have to sign off on as the Government of the Northwest Territories in the near future if we’re really going to make this go ahead, as well as have those partnership agreements and the power purchase agreements in place with the mines. So there are a number of key things that go ahead much like, for example, the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline. There is a potential project, but the proponents have to decide if it actually goes after they’ve invested significant dollars through an environmental process to see if, in fact, it can proceed in a cost-effective manner. So the same thing applies to the Taltson. Thank you.
I think with something like the Taltson expansion we need to be thinking long term, we need to be thinking about the benefits to the people of the Northwest Territories, not just to the pocketbook of Deze which stands to make a lot of money from this if we go around the East Arm. There are other mining opportunities. There’s Avalon near Thor Lake, there are opportunities in Pine Point, and there’s also, hopefully someday if there aren’t already, opportunities in the North Slave Geological Province that can be accessed through alternate routes. I want to know why we’re so bent on going with this around the East Arm route through a park, a brand new federal park, when there are all these other opportunities which will create more opportunities in the long run such as an opportunity to create some grids. It seems awfully short-sighted to go around the East Arm and ignore these other routes. I was wondering if the Premier could tell me a little bit more about why we’re so set on that one route.
Mr. Speaker, the alternate routes have been looked at by the Hydro Corporation and the Power Corp because through the environmental review they were asked for additional information. That was provided. This project will not work. We will not be able to sell energy to the mines for an acceptable rate. They will not sign power purchase agreements for a cost higher than they’re able to develop it for in today’s environment. Adding approximately $100 million-plus to the project by going around the west side of the lake would put that project in a place where it is uneconomical and we have no project; there will be no expansion without a customer. The customer base is based on kilowatt hours. Those discussions are ongoing and if those agreements get signed, we have a project to move forward. If they don’t get signed, we have no project. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is more than just the western route; there are the two across-the-lake routes, and if I remember correctly, I think the costs on those aren’t quite as high as going all the way around the west. One might be $40 million and one might be $50 million. I don’t know for sure, but it’s quite a gap from the $100 million that the Premier is suggesting. I’m thinking that the costing that we got was from Deze. Deze wants to go around the east. How do we know that the costing we’re getting for the other routes are fair and reasonable? Would the Premier commit to actually having a little bit of an independent review done into the actual costing of alternate routes? Because the only ones we’re getting are Deze and Hydro Corporation assessments. I’d like to see what some of those costs are from an independent body as opposed to Deze. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, through the environmental review process additional information was requested. That information was gathered and supplied to the review board around alternate sites. We go from $70 million to as high as $200 million, depending on the different scenarios that we’ve looked at: across-the-lake, underwater cable and so on. Substantially more expensive than what’s in place today. Without a business case, without a customer at a kilowatt hour, there is no project unless this government itself decides to pay the additional cost for going alternate routes around the lake. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
