Presentation by Qulliq Energy Corporation
Iqaluit, NU
October 2010
1
Presentation Overview
 Qulliq Energy Corporation (QEC) – FAQs
 Background – QEC Capital Program
 Assessment of QEC Infrastructure
 Long Term Sustainable Planning
 Infrastructure Drivers
 Immediate Needs
 Alternative Energy Solutions
 Conclusion
 Discussion / Questions
2
Qulliq Energy Corporation (QEC) - FAQs
 Service to Canada’s largest
Territory or Province at
approx. 2 million sq kms.
 33,000 people in 25 isolated
communities
 Approximately 11,000
residential and commercial
customers
 Primarily power diesel
generation.
3
Qulliq Energy Corporation - FAQs
 2009/10 production –
approximately 161 GWH
 Produced by 93 diesel
generator-sets with ratings of
150 kW – 4,280 kW
 One AOC 15/50 wind turbine
operating in Rankin Inlet
(65kW)
 QEC utilized approximately
45M litres of diesel fuel in
2009/10 at a cost of $39M
4
Qulliq Energy Corporation - FAQs
 2 Main Corporate Offices
 3 Regional Offices
 27 Power Plants in 25
communities
 275 kms of distribution
lines
 Approximately 185
employees
5
Background - QEC Capital Programs
 Since creation of Nunavut,
only one new power plant
has been constructed –
Baker Lake
 Capital programs have
been reactive – focused on
keeping the lights on
 Program built around
immediate priorities
 Limitations on capital
expenditures
6
Background - QEC Capital Programs
 Baker Lake Power Plant has been the only major
project (exceeding $5M)
 In 2010/11, first year of multi-year major project to
upgrade Iqaluit distribution system - $14M total
 Annual capital programs have not kept pace with aging
infrastructure / increased demands
 Capacity increase requirements are now starting to
exceed the physical constraints of existing structures /
systems.
7
Assessment of QEC Infrastructure
 Major infrastructure is aging and demands on
infrastructure are stressing it to the point of failure.
 A number of assessments and proposals have been
completed over the years recommending the
replacement and/or upgrade of facilities.
 Majority of existing plants built without security
features such as fencing to protect the public and
company property.
8
Assessment of QEC Infrastructure - Qikiqtaaluk
Plant
Constructed
Addition
Condition
Arctic Bay
1974
Increased capacity required; no room to install more capacity
Cape Dorset
1964
Clyde River
1999
OK
Grise Fiord
1963
Poor condition; foundation degradation; flooding, too small
Hall Beach
1974
1993
OK
Igloolik
1974
2005
OK
Iqaluit
1964
Structurally OK; additional capacity required; no space
Kimmirut
1992
OK
Pangnirtung
1971
OK – limited space
Pond Inlet
1992
OK
Qikiqtarjuaq
1963
Resolute Bay
1971
OK
Sanikiluaq
2001
OK
1973 / 1992
1975 / 1986
Poor condition; gensets require replacement; increased
capacity required
Poor condition; structural, electrical, & mechanical need work
9
Assessment of QEC Infrastructure - Kivalliq
Plant
Construction
Addition
Condition
Arviat
1971
1979
Poor; foundation issues; capacity issues
Baker Lake
2003
OK
Chesterfield Inlet
1975
Poor; small, poorly constructed
Coral Harbour
1988
OK
Rankin Inlet
1973
Repulse Bay
2000
OK
Whale Cove
1991
OK – foundation issue
1986 / 1993
Structurally OK but running out of space
10
Assessment of QEC Infrastructure - Kitikmeot
Plant
Construction
Addition
Cambridge Bay
1967
1970
Gjoa Haven
1977
Kugluktuk
1968
Kugaaruk
1974
Taloyoak
1972
Condition
OK – tank farm needs work
Fair
1989
OK
Poor
1986 / 1993
Very poor; foundation & fuel system issues; capacity
and space issues; “eyesore”.
11
Assessment of QEC Infrastructure - General
 Assessment is strictly for power plants.
 Power plants typically designed for 40 year life
 6 plants – 40-50+ years old
 11 plants – 30-40 years old
 1 plant – 20-30 years old
 4 plants – 10-20 years old
 3 plants – 0-10 years old.
 17 of 25 power plants are near or at the end of their
design life.
12
Long Term Sustainable Planning
 5 Year Capital plan
should have:
 1-3 plants in plan
 200-250 poles replaced
annually
 5-7 gensets replace
annually based on
hours.
 6-7 light vehicles
replaced annually.
13
Infrastructure Drivers
 Design life of equipment
 Community growth / increased
 QEC has a “Duty to Serve” as the sole power provider
 Provision of electricity is an essential service
 Community / Territorial Infrastructure Additions
 Alternative Energy Initiatives – desire to reduce
reliance on fossil fuels
14
Infrastructure Drivers
 Legislative / Regulatory
Changes – QEC forced to
comply with new
legislative / regulatory
requirements
 Residual Heat (RH)
Recovery – utilizing RH
can improve plant
efficiency by 100%; cost
effective method to
displace fossil fuels utilized
for space heating.
15
Immediate Needs
 New Power Plants – Cape Dorset, Qikiqtarjuak, &
Taloyoak
 Poor condition
 Increased capacity
 Improved efficiency
 Iqaluit Plant Expansion / Capacity Increase
16
Other Identified Needs
 Immediate needs address 4 power plants; 17 power plants
in total are at or near the end of design life
 Other power plants identified as priorities:
 Grise Fiord
 Chesterfield Inlet
 Arviat
 Gjoa Haven
 Pangnirtung
 Kugaaruk
 5 Year Capital Plan - $145M; 10 Year Capital Plan - $250M
17
Alternative Energy Solutions
 QEC / GN looking into alternative energy options to
reduce reliance on fossil fuels and reduce GHG
 Public expectation
 Who pays?
 Hydro & Wind currently being explored
18
Hydro
 QEC and its predecessors have investigated hydro
development extensively
 Desktop studies completed and some field work for
Baffin and Kivalliq Region
 Cost of development and transmission very expensive
given the environment, distances and small loads
 Iqaluit may be one community where hydrodevelopment may be feasible / economically viable
19
Hydro - Overview
 City of Iqaluit – largest center in Nunavut;
approximately 8,000 people with projected population
of 13,000 within 10 years.
 Energy requirements are rapidly increasing; increasing
demand for fossil fuelled power generation.
 Potential to displace 13-15 million litres of diesel fuel
annually
 Annual Energy requirement:
 1999/00 = 38 GWH; 4.3 MW ave.; 6.9 MW peak
 2009/10 = 57 GWH; 6.5 MW ave.; 9.5 MW peak
 2019/20 = 80 GWH; 9.1 MW ave.; 12.5 MW peak
Hydro - Location Assessment
 Significant hydro potential within 100 km of
Iqaluit to help meet energy requirements
 Projects ranged in size from 4 MW to 30 MW
 Projects appear to be price competitive with
diesel generators
 Initial Capital Cost Estimates of $80 - $550
million for the various sites
 14 Sites investigated – short listed
 Jaynes Inlet selected
Jaynes Inlet / Work to Date
• 2005 Site visits by hydropower consultants
• 2006/07 Environmental baseline studies continued on
short-listed sites; WSC installed stream gauges at 14 sites
• 2008 April -Hydro committee recommendation Akulikutaaq (Armshow River)
• June - Preliminary hydrology results – Knight Piesold
• July - QEC Board selected preferred site for feasibility
study
• 2009 Final Environmental Baseline Studies completed
for Qikiqgijavik (Jaynes Inlet)(4 seasons ) - info required
to produce Environmental Impact Statement.
Hydro - Next Steps

Pursue Funding for Feasibility studies

Continue Data Collection

Land use permits for feasibility study activities (i.e., drilling)

Initiate process to obtain land control

Initiate environmental assessment and licensing processes

Retain University of Ottawa for methyl mercury study

Climate Change Impact Study

Continue Public consultation
Next Steps cont…
 Critical next step is to get funding for feasibility study
 Upon completion of feasibility study, QEC will need to find
partners for the project
 Potential for private sector or land claim groups to become
involved – P3
 Estimated Project Cost $180M
Wind
 QEC has applied for funding to INAC to complete wind




studies in 5 communities.
QEC/PEI Energy (WEICan) are exploring the feasibility of a
wind-hydrogen-diesel power hybrid system for deployment
in Nunavut.
The wind-hydrogen-diesel capacity would be integrated in
Cape Dorset when upcoming power plant upgrades are
undertaken.
The anticipated cost is $25 million.
Federal funding support is critical for this project to move
forward.
26
Conclusion
 Infrastructure is aging and the integrity of QEC’s assets must be




improved and/or maintained to ensure the delivery of safe, reliable,
economic energy.
Deferring capital has a domino effect and has a tendency to require
huge expenditures all at one time as infrastructure begins to fail.
Current levels of funding - $10M-$12M annually – will not be sufficient
to replace aging infrastructure or to maintain the integrity of QEC’s
generating / distribution infrastructure.
Current rate structure / customer base can not bear total cost of capital
program
QEC / GN cannot implement long-term Alternative Energy solutions
without a healthy injection of human and fiscal capital.
27