Ah, that would explain it, they just don’t know what they’re talking about

We had thought the proponent was sly but it now appears they just don’t know what they’re talking about. Some examples (also see Fenelon Falls article here):

1. In response to our on-going request that a vibration study be completed, the proponent states “No vibration is expected to be experienced atop of the powerhouse” and “We do not believe there will be any ground vibrations at the property limits that could be detected by a human observer”.
   
   Well at the Fenelon Falls power station, which has a public observation deck, the vibration is much more than “detectable”. The vibration is very apparent and feels as if one is standing on a humming factory (which is in fact true). And note, the proposed Bala power station would have a capacity 65% greater than that at Fenelon Falls.
   
   
2. The proponent claims the area above the proposed power station would be “a park-like setting”, yet at Fenelon Falls, when standing on the public lookout the drone of the machinery below drowns out the sound of the falls. And this during the heavy water flow over Fenelon Falls and as noted above, the proposed Bala power station would have a capacity 2/3 times greater.
   
   
3. The entire front wall of the Fenelon Falls power station is a ventilation air intake and there are two large air exhausts on the roof (plus the emergency egress hatch and the safety harness cable), plus another at the front of the building. In contrast, the proponent’s rendering for the proposed Bala power station shows the too-small exhaust vents covered by landscaping (again, even though the proposed Bala power station would be 2/3 times larger).
   
   
4. There have been at least three incarnations of Option 1. Initially the proponent claimed they didn’t know they had drawn it to not fit onto just the land owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). So they tried changing its orientation. Then in their environmental screening report the proponent decided they wouldn’t/couldn’t build Option 1 because of the intake restrictions and danger to in-water recreation, so they had to build Option 2. Then they made up some new sketches for Option 1 that fit on just the MNR land, and they decided that by some magic now Option 1 would even have greater capacity than Option 2, and for some reason, now the danger to in-water recreation wouldn’t be a problem. (This reminds me of my pet dog Mozart.)
   
   
5. The view from the proposed Bala power station public look-out would be completely blocked by a 5′-high, 25′-wide hoist mechanism for the tailrace gate hoist. This is ridiculous, why do they release technical drawings known to be unacceptable and contrary to their public statements of a “commanding view westward” and a “grand view down river”.
   
   
6. Their noise calculations only include two of the six noise sources, and assume that the proposed building would have 8″-thick concrete walls, even though there would need to be several openings for ventilation fans and three large roof hatches. The noise calculations are therefore completely inadequate and incomplete.
   
   
7. After a year of negotiations, on December 16, 2010 the proponent signed an agreement with Ontario Power Generation agreeing to cycle the operation of the proposed station.
   
   This has major fish and shoreline habitat and public safety issues. Yet the public was not informed until after March 25, 2011, and these implications have still not been addressed by the proponent.

These are not minor oversights, they show inexperience, a cavalier pattern of withholding information important to the public, and of saying anything to the public that will get their project approved, regardless of fact or science.